|
SedanChair posted: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. Then why don't you reject anti-discrimination legislation and jurisprudence where they do precisely that?
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:Then why don't you reject anti-discrimination legislation and jurisprudence where they do precisely that? Who said I don't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who said I don't? It is fine if you don't, but you seem to be phrasing your arguments as if they are in agreement with prevailing American thought and fundamentals. If that isn't true, it might help to be more clear about your methods and analysis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who said I don't? "drat government has no place telling me I can't fire my employee just because I found out he was a thieving Jew! This is tyranny!!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Je suis Le Pen may be more apt This is perfect, because it's all the same folks who poo poo on refugees and average minorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Who is the government to say all men are created equal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Does the op's vision of 'freedom of speech' necessarily include 'political donations = free speech'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Does the op's vision of 'freedom of speech' necessarily include 'political donations = free speech'? I would imagine that would be very expensive speech, free speech is much less valuable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Does the op's vision of 'freedom of speech' necessarily include 'political donations = free speech'? Kinda outside the purview of this thread, but if two parties come to an agreement to exchange money for airtime it's their business. The 1A does not guarantee you'll have the same amount of speech as anyone else. It does guarantee it will remain not Uncle Sam's beeswax though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:33
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Kinda outside the purview of this thread, but if two parties come to an agreement to exchange money for airtime it's their business. The 1A does not guarantee you'll have the same amount of speech as anyone else. It does guarantee it will remain not Uncle Sam's beeswax though. So you don't think that campaign finance is something worth regulating? Edit: You suggest it's outside the purview of the thread, but i'd disagree. You were pretty unambiguous about the objective superiority of how 'free speech' is considered in the united states vs 'generic european country', but I'm not so sure that's true, when you consider something other than just 'hate speech'. sudo rm -rf fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:So you don't think that campaign finance is something worth regulating? Not without a Constitutional Convention that'd make Bernie Sanders cream his pants. IMHO Citizens United was correctly decided, considering the alternative was allowing the feds to control the timing and release of political speech. Not happening. Kennedy's concurrence was that candidates could be required to disclose donations though, kinda like tax releases from publicly traded corps are published. That Congress has yet to do that is neither the Supremes' nor the 1A's problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
LGD posted: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. Kind of telling that you think equal dignity for all groups of people is a pernicious social program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Kinda outside the purview of this thread, but if two parties come to an agreement to exchange money for airtime it's their business. The 1A does not guarantee you'll have the same amount of speech as anyone else. It does guarantee it will remain not Uncle Sam's beeswax though. So, speech is not free, but we certainly don't want the government doing anything to alter that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Not without a Constitutional Convention that'd make Bernie Sanders cream his pants. IMHO Citizens United was correctly decided, considering the alternative was allowing the feds to control the timing and release of political speech. Not happening. Kennedy's concurrence was that candidates could be required to disclose donations though, kinda like tax releases from publicly traded corps are published. That Congress has yet to do that is neither the Supremes' nor the 1A's problem. That wasn't the "alternative" and Citizen's United is a deeply mistaken court decision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That wasn't the "alternative" and Citizen's United is a deeply mistaken court decision. The Wiki posted:In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. Do me a favor and find me the "electoneering exception" in the 1A, will you? OwlFancier posted:So, speech is not free, but we certainly don't want the government doing anything to alter that? Not free in the sense you wish it was, at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Not free in the sense you wish it was, at least. It's not free in any meaningful sense if you do nothing to stop Capital from dominating discourse by having them set the entire agenda of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Do me a favor and find me the "electoneering exception" in the 1A, will you? So how do you feel about well-regulated militias?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So how do you feel about well-regulated militias? I'm a huge fan of high-quality equipment being available on the open market, now that you mention it. OwlFancier posted:It's not free in any meaningful sense if you do nothing to stop Capital from dominating discourse by having them set the entire agenda of discussion. You're free to call a Constitutional Convention if that's how you feel about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You're free to call a Constitutional Convention if that's how you feel about it. dat so mang? Pray tell what would his standing be for the courts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Do me a favor and find me the "electoneering exception" in the 1A, will you? Please find me where it says corporations and unions have freedom of speech. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Please find me where it says corporations and unions have freedom of speech. 1st and 14th Amendments.  Kennedy posted:"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Spaceman Future! posted:dat so mang? Pray tell what would his standing be for the courts? You... understand what a convention is and how it would be called, right? It's not a court case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
LGD posted: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. The US already does that. What would be the additional harm in extending "you can't advocate to destroy the US government" to "you can't advocate to destroy gay people"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1st and 14th Amendments. So now you're going with a non-contextual reading to back up your assertion that we should only do so strict readings of the text, huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You're free to call a Constitutional Convention if that's how you feel about it. Well, in theory I would be if I were also free to make my case, which I'm not, because speech is expensive, not free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
It is interesting to see people apply Enlightenment Era theories without applying Enlightenment Era methods under modern material conditions, given that these theories were entirely conceived under a vastly different set of material conditions. This is actually a rejection of Enlightenment Era thought, and most certainly a denial of the possible evolution of socio-political science and a rejection of the principles of philosophy. It shares a lot in common with Rothbardian Libertarianism and Von Mises Praxeology. .
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1st and 14th Amendments. we all know what a constitutional convention is but proposing constitutional changes is about as workable a suggestion as choking on your own spit to make the bad laws go bye bye as you fade into the night and only a really dumb person would suggest it as an unironic alternative other than finding a legitimate way of challenging the ruling within the current infrastructure I was being generous and assuming you were sarcastic, thank you for calling my bluff things are much clearer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Also no you can reject the marketplace of ideas and not reject our modern system of governance because we are not an Athenian democracy for that very reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1st and 14th Amendments. Sorry, but last I checked Kennedy isn't an amendment. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Kind of telling that you think equal dignity for all groups of people is a pernicious social program. Do I? Because I don't remember saying or even implying that. There are all kinds of perfectly laudable laws and programs designed to enact social change, and I thought that went without saying. I just find the argument that hate speech laws somehow aren't about enforcing social change absolutely breathtaking in its fundamental dishonesty. I think the fact that you assume that because I find such dishonesty objectionable, even in support of a noble cause, I must secretly harbor Bad Thoughts about minorities is far more revealing. Sharkie posted:The US already does that. What would be the additional harm in extending "you can't advocate to destroy the US government" to "you can't advocate to destroy gay people"? As a matter of law you're quite free to advocate the overthrow or destruction of the U.S. government, and it probably shouldn't shock you to find out that I'm extremely opposed to sedition laws. I mean I used them as an example of how prior restraints on speech have historically been abused for political ends didn't I? And I'd obviously be quite happy to extend the exceptions that apply to seditious speech to minorities as well, but fortunately I don't have to because it turns out that directly inciting violence and engaging in criminal conspiracies is already illegal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
LGD posted:Do I? Because I don't remember saying or even implying that. There are all kinds of perfectly laudable laws and programs designed to enact social change, and I thought that went without saying. I just find the argument that hate speech laws somehow aren't about enforcing social change absolutely breathtaking in its fundamental dishonesty. I think the fact that you assume that because I find such dishonesty objectionable, even in support of a noble cause, I must secretly harbor Bad Thoughts about minorities is far more revealing. You're projecting a dishonesty that doesn't exist. You say that hate speech laws enforce social change as though we're all supposed to agree with you, but I don't really see why we should.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:You're projecting a dishonesty that doesn't exist. You say that hate speech laws enforce social change as though we're all supposed to agree with you, but I don't really see why we should. I don't see why you wouldn't, there's nothing controversial about that notion and I'm not trying to score some sort of bizarre rhetorical coup. If such laws didn't enforce social change they'd be utterly pointless! Why is it somehow threatening to acknowledge that such laws fall into a category shared with things like tax incentives for using green energy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm a huge fan of high-quality equipment being available on the open market, now that you mention it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
LGD posted:I don't see why you wouldn't, there's nothing controversial about that notion and I'm not trying to score some sort of bizarre rhetorical coup. If such laws didn't enforce social change they'd be utterly pointless! Why is it somehow threatening to acknowledge that such laws fall into a category shared with things like tax incentives for using green energy? Well yes you're correct in that they do something, in much the same way that blinking converts something into something else, but blinking doesn't cause people to die and it's disingenuous to suggest that everytime I blink someone dies because something happens, and that's good enough. You're taking the very broad definition of social change as "someone, somewhere changed something" which is technically true if you ignore absolutely everything that those two words actually represent and take it at the most base level first grade understanding of language. When people say social change they usually mean something like American gay clubs causing Denmark to pass same sex union legislation via the powers of time travel or women being allowed to vote. I guess you could also include "Cletus decides that calling that black man a friend of the family isn't worth a night at the police station"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Well yes you're correct in that they do something, in much the same way that blinking converts something into something else, but blinking doesn't cause people to die and it's disingenuous to suggest that everytime I blink someone dies because something happens, and that's good enough. What. No, I'm quite specifically talking about social engineering- using legislation (or other means) to influence the attitudes and behaviors of society as a whole to achieve a preferred end. Hate speech laws, like speech laws in general, are quite blatantly designed to do this- i.e. enact social changes. You, for reasons I cannot fathom, are insisting that this isn't the case and that the laws are not actually designed to do any such thing. You haven't really backed this up though, and this particular piece of incoherence isn't really helping you make your point. edit: also this derail is stupid as hell, but I'm really struggling to wrap my head around a worldview where laws designed to forbid the expression of certain ideas under threat of sanction aren't entirely about influencing how society and individuals think and behave LGD fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
It is still really good to financially harm NFL people who say bad things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
I'd say your confusion arises from a false assumption where you somehow believe it is illegal to express those sentiments in general. It's not. Hate speech laws are not, by definition, designed to curb an individual's private expression and their practice of it thereof. If people want to go to their local Klan meetings and sit around discussing with other like minded people how the friend of the family menace is threatening society along with the total takings from their bake sale, they can do that. That's grand. If they want to take that meeting to someone's front garden with a burning cross then there's probably going to be issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
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. As I understand, that's how it usually is with those kinds of laws. Almost no government (except maybe North Korea) ever admits to senselessly repressing some unpopular group to score points with the unwashed masses, or to censoring dissent in the name of suppressing the idea that they should have to give a flying gently caress about their citizens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I'd say your confusion arises from a false assumption where you somehow believe it is illegal to express those sentiments in general. It's not. Yes and there should be issues, because then they'd be committing criminal acts that are already illegal and can already be prosecuted under existing U.S. law. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between objectionable protected speech and acts of assault/harassment/intimidation, which nobody (I hope) is defending in this thread. But in most of their implementations hate speech laws are very much designed to curb discussions between like minded individuals, or prevent any expression of such sentiments in public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Hate speech laws are not, by definition, designed to curb an individual's private expression and their practice of it thereof. If people want to go to their local Klan meetings and sit around discussing with other like minded people how the friend of the family menace is threatening society along with the total takings from their bake sale, they can do that. That's grand. That seems like precisely the sort of thing you'd want to ban, if you're working from an "incitement to harm" framework.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
LGD posted:Yes and there should be issues, because then they'd be committing criminal acts that are already illegal and can already be prosecuted under existing U.S. law. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between objectionable protected speech and acts of assault/harassment/intimidation, which nobody (I hope) is defending in this thread. But in most of their implementations hate speech laws are very much designed to curb discussions between like minded individuals, or prevent any expression of such sentiments in public. Well seeing as how it's their job to prevent those expressions in public, then yes I guess they do do that. You can't argue against that. Any sensibly crafted hate speech laws are usually very nuanced and almost always refer to public acts intended to incite hatred against protected groups. You keep making this claim that they're used to crush dissent, but you don't really seem to have the grasp of what the laws actually are, so I'd suggest you do some reading into the various hate speech laws that countries do have (Germany and South Africa are two good examples, for some reason) and seeing exactly how they are constructed. For someone who is terrified of overly simple laws crushing liberty you're very quick to boil down quite complex laws into a simple one. falcon2424 posted:That seems like precisely the sort of thing you'd want to ban, if you're working from an "incitement to harm" framework. I disagree. There's quite an extensive sewer network running underneath my city, and I don't usually give it much thought because it generally doesn't harm me unless it suddenly spews over and starts stinking up the streets with poo poo. Then I'd hope that adequate measures to remove the poo poo would be taken. Bigots congregating to be discuss their bigoted beliefs with other bigots is all well and good until they decide to force their bigoted views on people and harming them. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:40
|
|