|
LGD posted:I think the "slippery slope is invalid" arguments would be far more persuasive if: Which historical examples?
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Which historical examples? Are you familiar with the terms "blasphemy," "heresy" and "sedition?" Or variants like "seditious libel," a charge associated with a court that inspired several aspects of the U.S. constitution? You seem like you might not be, so you should probably look them up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
LGD posted:Are you familiar with the terms "blasphemy," "heresy" and "sedition?" Or variants like "seditious libel," a charge associated with a court that inspired several aspects of the U.S. constitution? You seem like you might not be, so you should probably look them up. I am fairly certain we are arguing freedom of speech, not religion. So heresy and blasphemy is a wash here. Seditious libel - "threat of action... designed... to intimidate the public or a section of the public" I'll let you figure out how that's dissimilar from saying that maybe LGBT are actually people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Alternate reality religious right-winger OwlFancier: "I think it's probably bad for ARE CHILDREN to have gay people be allowed to be around them in the street, so I think it's good if we stopped that from happening." The possible benefits from restricting hateful speech don't tempt me remotely enough to crack the door open even a bit for the John Hagees of the U.S. These very two paragraphs are why I'm asking you to think critically about why calling gay people inhuman is, or is not, political speech. Stop ignoring the question and address it, please. For the sake of this to be a debate and not merely your polemic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I am fairly certain we are arguing freedom of speech, not religion. So heresy and blasphemy is a wash here. It doesn't matter how different it is, you can say that promoting homosexuality is intended to undermine the health, safety and military preparedness of the nation. You can say whatever you want when popular opinion is on your side. And if you've undermined the precedent that speech should not be regulated, it's that much easier to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Contrariwise, prejudice is inevitable once you deny that people have any right to dignity. Inevitably, people will, in a society where hatred and mistreatment are explicitly acceptable, take advantage of the opportunities offered.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I am fairly certain we are arguing freedom of speech, not religion. So heresy and blasphemy is a wash here. Do you think that perhaps an important component of freedom of speech is freedom to speak about religion, the religious, and religious institutions? And do you see why, in a thread where people are seriously suggesting we make criticism of religious adherents a crime, a person may feel that there are some fairly direct comparisons between such a proposal and past laws against blasphemy and heresy? And that dismissals of the concern as being about freedom of religion rather than speech is the very farthest thing from reassuring? Gravel Gravy posted:Seditious libel - "threat of action... designed... to intimidate the public or a section of the public" Or not, you know, because I was quite obviously referring to its historical use, which you completely fail to address or even indicate you understand. I'm sorry you don't like the comparisons being drawn, but that's because the history of legal restrictions on speech meant to protect the public interest, and their track record of abuse, is actually loving terrible, not because such comparisons are unfair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
I get the feeling that the people who believe that nobody has an inherent right to dignity also live by the mantra of "Respect has to be earned" which is frankly sociopathic to even consider. Why would you not treat everyone with respect, unless they give you a reason not to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
At this point the thread has diverged into two conversations. One about the freedom of speech in general and the other is on the concept of responsible speech. It would be nice if these could be separated, if only to solve this clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I get the feeling that the people who believe that nobody has an inherent right to dignity also live by the mantra of "Respect has to be earned" which is frankly sociopathic to even consider. Why would you not treat everyone with respect, unless they give you a reason not to? What does respect have to do with the law? You can't force people to respect others. You can force them to shut up about their disrespect but what do you think that is going to accomplish in a country where the right already has a persecution complex? You think it's going to stop them from bullying people? From killing people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What does respect have to do with the law? You can't force people to respect others. You can force them to shut up about their disrespect but what do you think that is going to accomplish in a country where the right already has a persecution complex? You think it's going to stop them from bullying people? From killing people? Agreed, let the free market sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
The law only operates by forcing people, and doesn't inform their beliefs about what's acceptable. Also, only hard-core right-wingers ever engage in or support hate speech.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Hrmm, Constitutional scholar rudatron that's a fascinating theory. Especially since McCarthy existed before the Brandenburg case in 1969 that defined the modern First Amendment. He literally was not operating under the same restrictions a modern fascist would. OTOH it's left wingers (by American standards) in all other first world countries that originated hate speech law. And such laws are automatically unamerican... Sounds to me like exactly the point I was making, in that when idiots start talking about how the 1st amendment protects all extreme views, they're being a moron. It only protects the right-wing ones, when it comes to the left there are other sorts of excuses that are trotted out. Here's another examples of flouting legality that's perfectly normal, and way worse than whatever imaginary threat hate speech laws pose: abortion clinic attacks. See, Abortion is supposed to be legal, and this has been established in a supreme court decision. Funny thing is, abortion clinics all over the US are closing. Know why? Because state legislatures keep upping the requirements that clinics must fulfill, with the implicit goal of trying to force them out of business. They need unnecessarily expensive medical set-ups, or they need to show the patient a scan of their baby before they can actually perform the operation, or whatever. So while the legal right technically exists, in reality that right is being denied, because it's being made harder & harder to fulfill. Is this getting coverage? Is this seen as a crisis of legality? No. That's the double standard. The right can used underhanded, deceptive trickery and get away with it. It only has to respect the law if it's convenient for them, when it's not, they'll just cheat. This from the same people banging that drum of law and order. What a bunch of hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The law only operates by forcing people, and doesn't inform their beliefs about what's acceptable. Also, only hard-core right-wingers ever engage in or support hate speech. This is clearly untrue, as Stalin was bad and mean, therefore left-wingers are the real monsters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It doesn't matter how different it is, you can say that promoting homosexuality is intended to undermine the health, safety and military preparedness of the nation. You can say whatever you want when popular opinion is on your side. And if you've undermined the precedent that speech should not be regulated, it's that much easier to do. So hate speech is bad? Also glad we are finally bringing public opinion into the mix to kill the idea that a slippery slope from law to fascism is a worthwhile argument. LGD posted:Do you think that perhaps an important component of freedom of speech is freedom to speak about religion, the religious, and religious institutions? And do you see why, in a thread where people are seriously suggesting we make criticism of religious adherents a crime, a person may feel that there are some fairly direct comparisons between such a proposal and past laws against blasphemy and heresy? And that dismissals of the concern as being about freedom of religion rather than speech is the very farthest thing from reassuring? LGD posted:Whoa that elided quotation from the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 included in the the wikipedia article is wildly persuasive, I sure feel persuaded you've got a good grasp on the subject. Are you angry that the county registrar didn't process the burn permit for your effigy collection or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Is this getting coverage? Is this seen as a crisis of legality? No. That's the double standard. The right can used underhanded, deceptive trickery and get away with it. It only has to respect the law if it's convenient for them, when it's not, they'll just cheat. This from the same people banging that drum of law and order. What a bunch of hypocrites. Well, yes, but as Correct Poster LGD pointed out, heresy was once banned speech, and that was at one point abused by a woman known as Elizabeth I of England. Clearly such a monster proves that if women are allowed control over their body they will suppress the right of free speech using religion as the anti-free-speech pill that poisons democracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:So hate speech is bad? I don't know what you're driving at, but as modern liberals define it, of course it is bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I think religion is covered from other parts of the first amendment. Given the narrow focus of this debate you're just muddying the focus. Beyond that, save your crocodile tears. So what's the gameplan here? Drop any pretense of putting effort into your posts and start slinging ad homs and implications of moral inferiority because you're completely incapable of arguing your position, in the hopes that I'll rage out at you and get myself probated or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:57
|
|
LGD posted:So what's the gameplan here? Drop any pretense of putting effort into your posts and start slinging ad homs and implications of moral inferiority because you're completely incapable of arguing your position, in the hopes that I'll rage out at you and get myself probated or something? No. I think it's just plain conversation.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
I mean I appreciate that laws have the capacity to be abused but that is typically why they'd ideally have clauses and stipulations to avoid any unintended consequences. It's typically why a lawyer just starting had to mortgage their firstborn just to get their first law library as opposed to a spending a day getting a pencil trace of Hammurabi's code. LGD posted:So what's the gameplan here? Drop any pretense of putting effort into your posts and start slinging ad homs and implications of moral inferiority because you're completely incapable of arguing your position, in the hopes that I'll rage out at you and get myself probated or something? I'm just trying to glean some perspective on why you're being obtuse. Gin and Juche fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I mean I appreciate that laws have the capacity to be abused but that is typically why they'd ideally have clauses and stipulations to avoid any unintended consequences. quote:I'm just trying to glean some perspective on why you're being obtuse. I'm being "obtuse" because you're doing a very, very, very bad job making a coherent or persuasive argument. But please tell me more about how "hate crimes" laws covering the religiously affiliated are not any cause for concern as a matter of general principle because you're "pretty sure" its covered by some part of the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we can achieve your desired laser-like focus on the issue under discussion by revisiting the relevance of Uganda's anti-gay laws to freedom of speech, or the how part of a statutory definition used by a UK law written in the year 2000 relates to concerns that influenced multiple amendments to the U.S. Constitution? LGD fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
LGD posted:That makes me feel so much better about the legitimization of a category of laws that until quite recently had a history of nothing but abuses. This sounds more like your personal interpretation of the (changing) laws has gone from them being abusive to being normal. Can you describe the reasoning that you feel the current interpretation is 'not entirely abusive' but the previous ones were abusive?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I mean I appreciate that laws have the capacity to be abused but that is typically why they'd ideally have clauses and stipulations to avoid any unintended consequences. Unintended consequences meaning...? someone else being able to use Uncle Sam as their own personal army? Your intended consequence of it being your army isn't anymore acceptable. How does any of this cut against the point I've been making? Before the Brandenberg test, the red scare was used an excuse to sic Uncle Sam on someone's political enemies. In the present day, giving abortion regulators the benefit of the doubt means they gently caress around with abortion clinics and close many of them down. Why would any of this ever convince me to let anyone stick their fingers in the First and/or Ninth Amendment pie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:55
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
More importantly why do you keep avoiding my question about the potential political element of calling gay people inhuman? At this point I'm assuming it's a political convenience for you to do so since nothing else could explain your continued replies in this thread without answering a pretty simple question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:More importantly why do you keep avoiding my question about the potential political element of calling gay people inhuman? Seems wasteful to start out by saying gay people are inhuman. You'd want to use a media campaign to show them as inhuman monsters, then voice support for the growing mass of people who start voicing the image you've carefully constructed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:More importantly why do you keep avoiding my question about the potential political element of calling gay people inhuman? Pretty sure I did answer it. DeusExMachinima posted:gently caress if I know the reasoning, ask someone who believes it. I understand what it is though, even if i don't understand the "logic" behind it, and what it is is political speech. That's all I need to know about it to be satisfied that it deserves protection. This might expand on what a political element is in my book: DeusExMachinima posted:Sorry, I missed this. I think you're setting the bar too high for what a political action is; they don't necessarily have to be someone getting discriminatory legal policy passed. Preaching on the street corner about how you shouldn't let you kids hang around gays is itself an example of a political protest, I'd argue. It doesn't necessarily have to translate into a discriminatory law in order to be inherently political. Personal conduct counts too. If I missed your main thrust, rephrase it and I'll give you my best shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:This sounds more like your personal interpretation of the (changing) laws has gone from them being abusive to being normal. I'm not actually insane? Most implementations of hate speech laws haven't exactly resulted in overwhelming tyranny and what abuses do exist seem pretty small beans given all the other hosed up legal poo poo in most societies. On the flip side I haven't seen much indication they're really making a difference in driving social change (though that'd admittedly be quite the challenge to instrumentalize), and I genuinely am concerned about the long term consequences of such laws and the illiberal strain of 'progressive' politics behind them. I don't think the fact that nothing has gone obviously wrong yet means much for my concerns, which are longer term- the Star Chamber had a few good decades after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Hate speech laws aren't designed to enact social change, though. That's a rather crucial element that people seem to miss. They're not designed to be the be-all and end-all of changing people's minds, they're there so that people who have absolutely no control over the elements of themselves that other people find repugnant do not have this part of their existence that, and I stress this once more, they have absolutely no say in whatsoever, used against them. They're not about enacting social change, they're about extending the baseline of human dignity that most people enjoy to as many people as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Hate speech laws aren't designed to enact social change, though. That's a rather crucial element that people seem to miss. In a way that distinction is even more pernicious because suggesting that speech targeting persons for characteristics we have decided are not immutable is not "hate speech" means that we've decided that it's permissible to target those people for those reasons. If you can criticize a person for their religion but not their sexuality, then the government is endorsing the idea that religion is less important than sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Hate speech laws aren't designed to enact social change, though. That's a rather crucial element that people seem to miss. They miss it because it's not actually true, and pretending otherwise is dishonest. Such laws are not designed to directly persuade people, but that doesn't mean they're not designed to enact social change (or, more frequently, social stasis). Minorities aren't legislatively granted dignity, the laws operate by retroactively punishing anyone found to have made statements demonstrating unacceptable opinions. Minorities are only granted protection from having to hear hostile opinions by using an implicit threat of force to cow any person or organization that bears them animus into silence. A law that declares certain thoughts unacceptable to voice (and by extension unacceptable to hold) can't have any purpose except enforcing a certain social programme.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In a way that distinction is even more pernicious because suggesting that speech targeting persons for characteristics we have decided are not immutable is not "hate speech" means that we've decided that it's permissible to target those people for those reasons. If you can criticize a person for their religion but not their sexuality, then the government is endorsing the idea that religion is less important than sexuality. Given that it's agreed by virtually all credible scientists, doctors and people who have actually studied it that sexuality is something that cannot be determined by the individual, no matter how hard they wish to pray away the gay, and that Religion is not it's disingenuous to conflate that 'criticism' (a lovely euphemism for the vitriol laid upon gay people, often by religious people) as being equally valid. You still haven't really explained how American culture is supposedly the catalyst for all gay rights legislation, even those put into place decades before America decided that it was OK to be gay in public without being murdered, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Given that it's agreed by virtually all credible scientists, doctors and people who have actually studied it that sexuality is something that cannot be determined by the individual, no matter how hard they wish to pray away the gay, and that Religion is not it's disingenuous to conflate that 'criticism' (a lovely euphemism for the vitriol laid upon gay people, often by religious people) as being equally valid. I'm not comfortable giving the government the authority to judge that scientific and medical evidence. And I still do not see why immutability makes a trait more worthy of special protection from criticism. Do you think that young Muslims do not deal with the same issues? Are they better able to deal with it than gays because hey, they can always quit being Muslims if they don't like it? Ddraig posted:You still haven't really explained how American culture is supposedly the catalyst for all gay rights legislation, even those put into place decades before America decided that it was OK to be gay in public without being murdered, by the way. I'm sorry, when was it legal to murder gays? woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Je suis Charlie motherfuckers. It's sad to see how many fellow euros voted against free speech, I hope that's just this forums nutty politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Hate speech laws aren't designed to enact social change, though. That's a rather crucial element that people seem to miss. The problem is that you have failed to notice is that speech codes don't actually help minorities. If you look around the world, and through our history all various speech codes do is make sure that the people with power don't get mocked. The people in charge of saying who can express a particular idea have been authoritarian assholes since at least the time of Socrates. That's the point of freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is a subset of a freedom to think for yourself. Nobody owns your brain except you. America has had a pretty good run with the extreme free speech absolutist run. There are some assholes like the Westboro Baptist Church, but nobody outside that cult thinks of them as a force for good. They're just a lawsuit mill stirring poo poo up so someone will punch one of them in the face so they can sue someone. Please point me to where prohibiting free speech actually fixed anything outside of re-education camps. If you have to outlaw an opposing view, that just makes it look like you suck at debating, and you conceded to the opposing view. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
You're absolutely right, nobody owns your brain but you. We haven't invented technology that allows people to see the deepest, innermost parts of your mind and I sincerely hope we never do. We do not prosecute thought crime, no matter how many slippery scenarios you set up. Nobody is being arrested based on their thoughts, or prosecuted because of their dreams and if they are, I really hope that travesty of justice is rectified. We don't even have a reliable way to figure out thought crime, or at least we wouldn't if bigots weren't the kind of arrogant, self-righteous pricks that can't help but run their mouth about the homos and the evil Jewish conspiracy. Even in those cases, the offence isn't the thought. The distinction is there, if you care to look. SedanChair posted:I'm not comfortable giving the government the authority to judge that scientific and medical evidence. And I still do not see why immutability makes a trait more worthy of special protection from criticism. Do you think that young Muslims do not deal with the same issues? Are they better able to deal with it than gays because hey, they can always quit being Muslims if they don't like it? It's not surprising you're against evidence based policy. I'm also not certain what helpful criticism can really be levelled against gay people? I'm guessing it's not the sane, reasoned discussion that maybe, just maybe people could just stop being gay, much in the same way black people can just stop being black, they just haven't tried hard enough. It's certainly not something that's been tried yet. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In a way that distinction is even more pernicious because suggesting that speech targeting persons for characteristics we have decided are not immutable is not "hate speech" means that we've decided that it's permissible to target those people for those reasons. If you can criticize a person for their religion but not their sexuality, then the government is endorsing the idea that religion is less important than sexuality. So? E: To be clear, the government already does this, essentially, with protected class statuses. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Je suis Charlie motherfuckers. Pretty sure Charlie Hebdo was acquitted of hate speech the only time the issue was brought to court dude
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:The problem is that you have failed to notice is that speech codes don't actually help minorities. If you look around the world, and through our history all various speech codes do is make sure that the people with power don't get mocked. Hate speech in Germany absolutely protects minorities and allows you to mock people with power what the gently caress dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Je suis Le Pen may be more apt
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:It's not surprising you're against evidence based policy. If that's what you took away from that, I don't know what to tell you. The innateness of sexual orientation isn't something for the government to weigh in on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:12
|
|