|
I regret this already. As an American, it's really bizarre to me to see most of the world making laws to protect their fee-fees and trigger warnings. Hate speech and blasphemy laws, in other words. From the American POV, the guiding bit of law is the Brandenburg Test. TL;DR unless I'm literally pointing at you telling my angry mob to light you on fire, it's almost certainly protected political speech. A pastor encouraging his flock not to vote to allow gays to adopt children because they're all evil socialist child rapists is protected in America and not most elsewhere in the first world. Or alternatively, calling God a loving joke and tipping my fedora is legal in America and the first world but not necessarily so in the developing world. It's really difficult for me to emphasize for international posters how much not in contention in America the supremacy of free speech is. Liberal, conservative, whatever, we have our disagreements but not on this one. Despite our hugely religious social tradition, nobody in America of any note wants blasphemy laws, if for no other reason than that they don't trust Uncle Sam to turn on them (maybe). I suppose the other far side of the spectrum of views on free speech would be someone like this, who could very well be a Poe's Law. Let me add that none of this should be taken to mean that I deny that people are incited to hate crimes by hate speech all the time. The link in the chain is what's missing. In the U.S. the buck stops with the person who heard the speech and acted, it's that simple. So statist bastards, explain yourselves. Short of actively communicating in the process of carrying out or planning criminal acts, why is it appropriate to respond to speech that offends you with state-sponsored violence? Can I respond in kind to your godawful shitposting if it sufficiently offends me (and it does)? DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 1, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 16:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
ductonius posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract So it all comes down to underlying assumptions to you? Is it, in your view, on the free speech advocates to justify why given political speech should not be subject to violence? Dreylad posted:It's pretty easy, in places other than America, some rights aren't absolute so these laws can exist within that constitutional framework. It's never easy or fun to defend the boundaries of free speech, because it's never the fluffy ideas anyone wants to ban.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
^^^Yes, and for the reason you stated. I guess you have gray areas crop up when you have to subjectively determine if the person might be engaging in stalking or harassment or assault if they're screaming in someone's face or following them for a long period of time.ductonius posted:No, that's just the beginning. If you're expecting an American to describe government censorship in anything but the shittiest terms, you're going to be waiting a long-rear end time. You could stand to explain what your personal social contract is and why anyone should care though. You're the one who wants the law, the burden of proof is on you. OK, not really surprised about the troll. The most memorable point for me was "her" proposal that burden of proof be shifted onto the defendant in hate speech cases. As for your solution, I'm pretty much in the same place. I can't say I fully understand the suffering of marginalized groups but in terms of systems that solve those problems over time, the 1A is kinda like democracy. It's the least worst solution we've found. Dreylad posted:No, it's pretty easy to explain the differences in attitudes towards free speech. I mean the ACLU ends up defending pretty lovely people in service of the First Amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:"I should have the right to not be subjected to any disruption in my daily life; lest of which the verbal kind" No no dawg it's different when my side does it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I made the mandatory trigger warning joke in the OP but I swear to Christ if you fuckers make this all about gamergate I will lock this thread and push it in the lake. Actual issues that matter please.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
^^^ironically "criminal syndicalism" laws in America in the early 1900's before the Supremes' current 1A philosophy were mostly used to outlaw early communist meetings. OwlFancier posted:Possibly the best argument against free speech is that free speech implies that all speech is valid, when it really isn't. Sometimes, if not a lot of the time, people say things which are demonstrably wrong, either ethically or factually, and sometimes they say things which are so wrong, or say them so often, that it can cause material harm to other people in the process. Nope. No way does somebody unironically write that last bit. You had us going OwlFancier but no way does someone look at that and go "yep no way this will be abused." 
DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
You have the inalienable right to be as offended as you want.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Heck you could almost say that people have a right to dignity (!) Should I just take your definition for it or what
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Here's a fun side trail of controlling the manner and delivery of speech: the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United struck down government censorship. Removing restrictions on donations and donation reporting were actually completely secondary to that, and Kennedy went on a bit of a tear laying out how Congress could resolve those monetary regulation issues. So really you could say the entire Democratic party wants to gently caress with the 1A to varying degrees.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Here's a controversial opinion: The US doesn't have free speech either. It has the pretense of free speech, but were that pretense actually put to the test, it would be abandoned. By the left? No, by the right. See: Red Scare/McCarthyism. Truth is that the free speech protection does not protect all equally. Free Speech is only seen as politically acceptable today because it protects racists/Nazis. Were it not to protect them, if they were instead protected by something else, it would be abandoned, and leftists would then get suppressed without a care in the world for the abstract concept of freedom. 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...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Now feel free to respond to the argument now that I've spoon fed it to you, although personally I have my own question I'd like to ask, I'll at least give you space to reply to rudatron. Oh, I'm well aware of the context you pinkos would like to put this poo poo into. Doesn't change the fact that in the Western community it's not right wingers that push hate speech laws in the modern day by and large. None of that requires me to live in denial of the fact that any given political football team will usually get selective about the rules of the game when it's especially suitable for them. But that's a cool hypothetical and nothing more. In light of which countries do have hate speech laws in reality, it's pretty fuckin' weaksauce to basically go "Oh yeah well those evil right wingers would do it, which is why the most right-wing Western nation has hate speech laws OH WAIT"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
^^^Wait, are you in favor of hate speech proscriptions? Because if so the idea that you're accusing me of having to filter reality through drawn curtains is pretty  Literally The Worst posted:literally "FUCKIN COMMIES HATE AMERICA" in 2015 jesus loving christ Hrmmm yeah I would agree that editing the 1A is anti-American, and also that you're living up to your username.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:If you think the constitution should never be amended that's pretty hardcore I wouldn't go that far. You're plain making GBS threads yourself if you think getting rid of the 1A would involve purely political fighting though, no matter what the process for amending it technically is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:is this like how if they come to grab your guns other people who totally aren't you are going to start sniping at federal agents Pretty much. My biggest criticism of fellow gunners is that their attitude many times devolves into "I buy more guns to protect my other guns" which is pretty loving pointless IMO. kustomkarkommando posted:You don't have to get rid of the first amendment to create hate speech laws though? Badger of Basra posted:Amending is not getting rid of. The First Amendment protects any/all political speech that doesn't create imminent violent threats. If you overrule that you've gotten rid of the 1A in the colloquial sense of the word, if not the literal one. The end result is the same, that you would've created an utterly unprecedented situation in U.S. legal theory.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There is a lot of speech beyond violent threats that isn't protected by the first amendment. Good thing I specified political speech then. kustomkarkommando posted:Rather than viewing hate speech laws as a curtailment of rights why not frame it as the creation of new individual rights and the protections associated with them? The right to not be offended? Can't see how that might go wrong. The way that's going to work out in practice in the U.S. is that criticism of Christianity is banned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Calling gay people abominations is not political speech. Should I just take your word for it? kustomkarkommando posted:A lot of countries hate speech laws are structured around the right to dignity and protection from degrading and humiliating treatment. And I'm telling you how it'd be implemented in America regardless of what anyone on somethingawful.com would want.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
quote:What is the political reasoning for considering gay people inhuman? 1) Considering it's not a belief I hold, I couldn't tell you. 2) Burden of proof is on you to rationalize the existence of new government powers. Hop to it. Starting assumption is that it is protected speech.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:What is protected speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Literally The Worst posted:so are you going to defend literally anything you say in this thread, or are you just going to keep going "no you're wrong, prove to me that you're right but you can't, because you're wrong" If you're the one who wants to make a new law, the burden of proof really is 100% on you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:so did you actually post this looking for debate, because i hate to break it to you guy, posting a thread to go "this is why i'm right and you're wrong. oh you explained your views? they're still wrong and so is your explanation" makes you jrode. not exactly conducive to a dialog Alright, let's rewind for a second. This subthread got started because this got posted: DeusExMachinima posted:The First Amendment protects any/all political speech that doesn't create imminent violent threats. If you overrule that you've gotten rid of the 1A in the colloquial sense of the word, if not the literal one. The end result is the same, that you would've created an utterly unprecedented situation in U.S. legal theory. Badger of Basra posted:There is a lot of speech beyond violent threats that isn't protected by the first amendment. DeusExMachinima posted:Good thing I specified political speech then. Badger of Basra posted:Calling gay people abominations is not political speech. Badger made the claim that expands government power. Burden of proof is on him (or you, if you agree).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:and you still made this thread just to tell people they're wrong, jrode jr I'm willing to consider I might be wrong as soon as I hear something besides "NO YOU PROVE WE SHOULDN'T MAKE A LAW!" Gravel Gravy posted:What actions can be taken for the betterment of society based on the idea that "gay people are abominations"? Betterment of society from whose perspective? The people who genuinely believe it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i think that, at the absolute bare minimum, eliminationist rhetoric is an example of political speech that serves no useful purpose in society beyond being provocative, and as such can be suppressed Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:why should they be able to proclaim that someone else should eb denied theirs Because they have an inalienable right to political speech. HTH. paranoid randroid posted:why should somebody get the protection of the law to make calls to deny other life and liberty? Because that call by itself isn't an imminent call for violence, ergo it passes the Brandenburg test, end of line. Ironically enough though I'd say the standard you articulated there rules out you calling for hate speech restrictions, since I see liberty as encompassing the right to publicly be a hateful rear end in a top hat. Good thing I don't think you should be thrown in jail for that, that'd suck if the country felt that way, wouldn't it? Gravel Gravy posted:Still waiting, hoss. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And consider the rest of us being able to enjoy the right not to have to listen to people calling for the death of all the Jews. Yeah no that's not what liberty means.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
^^Ah, I think I see. As you are aware, strict scrutiny--which the 1A is subject to obviously--requires the government to take the least invasive method of restricting rights. Jailing or fining someone for speaking their mind is more invasive than a court preventing the enforcement of and subsequently striking down a hypothetical "gays aren't citizens anymore" law on 14A grounds.Tesseraction posted:Yes, I know the case. I'm asking what the political reasoning is behind calling gay people inhuman. If you don't know, and can't tell me, but still advocate the defence of it as protected speech, it comes across as an interesting juxtaposition of 'I don't understand what it means' and 'it must be fundamentally protected' which is insufficient rationale for a sensible position. 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. Literally the Worst is probably going to come away disappointed because I think we both just see the other as having the burden of proof. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:no, i see you as not actually debating anything at all and just shutting down arguments with "well i'm right" and calling people who disagree with you commies, pinkos, and fascists I did demand the other side present evidence, you're correct. That's because the other side is the one wanting more restrictions. Now, if you really think it's on people to justify why something shouldn't be illegal I don't think there's much we're going to have to say to each other anyway. OwlFancier posted:Generally if we don't understand any constructive purpose for a thing and it seems like it would actively be harmful, the considered response is to oppose it. But I do oppose it... with more speech. OwlFancier posted:So like, I don't see what the point of "all gays are subhuman" is as a belief. I think it's probably bad for gay people to have other people yell that in the street, so I think it's good if we stop people yelling that in the street. 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. Tesseraction posted:I, however, am not requesting proof; I'm asking you to think critically about something brought up in this thread. See my above response to OwlFancier. It's not a worthwhile trade-off/risk, even if I didn't give a gently caress about political opponents' rights on principle.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I didn't want to mention the OP specifically when I said it's the same as gun nuts who ignore the qualifying statement in the 2A, but glad to see I was right. "Well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. Toasticle posted:The existing laws would just charge people having an illegal fire and/or property damage. Hate crime laws helps to charge them with what they were actually doing: threatening someone's life while being able to play the "I'm not touching you!" defense. Threatening someone's life is a crime and burning a cross on a black persons front lawn is doing exactly that but without hate crime laws they couldn't be charged since they didn't actually go up to them and say they deserved to die. Hate crime laws aren't necessary for charging someone with threatening another's life. That's just imminent threat of violence and is its own separate crime. Trying to find different ways of rephrasing the statement "He said something really really really offensive to me and I want him to cool his heels in a cell for it!" isn't going to create a breakthrough. It's very clear already that's what you're saying and it's dumb. archangelwar posted:We already have laws that restrict hate speech, do so in a very narrow fashion, and these have been ruled Constitutional. I am not sure why this conversation is being framed as anything new except for people to try and pretend that there is no middle ground between Libertopia and Islamic Caliphate. What laws do you have in mind when you refer to the American government's idea of hate speech? Because it seems pretty non-existent to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I like the thread title because it correctly suggests that one of the goals of hate speech is to marginalize and drown out the free speech of its targets. "We had to destroy the rudatron posted:But for that to happen, two conditions must be met: If you're waiting on a system that ensures people will always fairly objectively judge ideas with full information, you're going to be waiting on a system that doesn't involve humans at all. The field of ideologies is very diverse in the U.S., as it would be in any nation of 300+ million. The fact that most parties don't receive mainstream support is your real complaint, but utterly irrelevant to whether or not there are many flavors extant. And as far as abortion goes, we actually have fewer restrictions on that in the U.S. than in many parts of Europe. You're really painting with a broad brush and it still doesn't back up your thesis. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:Once again, I am not answering your questions because you are explicitly conflating "hate speech" with "things that must be banned." I have never suggested a ban on hate speech, I have simply discussed that certain specific instances of hate speech may be restricted under the 1st Amendment. Additionally that interpretations of the 1st seem to be broadening what can be deemed harmful and thus not covered. Your questions don't appear to have anything to do with these specific examples. You are definitely playing fast and loose with your definitions here. Speech that can be banned under Black v. Virginia isn't bannable because it's hateful but because it's intimidating in the circumstances it was delivered in. Were the content the same and the circumstances altered, it'd be ok to go. Try finding an acceptable circumstance to deliver holocaust denial in Germany for an actual example of what the term "hate speech" actually covers in the real world. All hate speech requires is that it was public and discriminatory against a protected class. Intimidation has nothing doing with it. Austria jailed David Irving for IIRC 5 years recently for publishing a denialism book. There is zero precedent (and never will be) for doing the same in the U.S. whether it's Holocaust or KKK subject material delivered in a book. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 23:27
|
|