The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Deep Discussion
Freedom of Speech

Deep Discussion Have a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old July 4th, 2017 (1:42 PM).
Trev's Avatar
Trev Trev is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Age: 22
Nature: Sassy
Posts: 1,389
But again, people will turn it around and say they're being discriminated against for their "beliefs." That's why we haven't banned the KKK.
__________________






Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old July 4th, 2017 (3:22 PM).
Adore's Avatar
Adore Adore is offline
Party.
     
    Join Date: Nov 2012
    Location: California
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Sassy
    Posts: 311
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Trev View Post
    But again, people will turn it around and say they're being discriminated against for their "beliefs." That's why we haven't banned the KKK.
    Bigots aren't a protected class and have no history of true oppression in any part of the world (in fact, they have a history of supremacy). It's a false equivalence.
    Reply With Quote
      #28    
    Old July 4th, 2017 (3:44 PM).
    Trev's Avatar
    Trev Trev is offline
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Age: 22
    Nature: Sassy
    Posts: 1,389
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Adore View Post
    Bigots aren't a protected class and have no history of true oppression in any part of the world (in fact, they have a history of supremacy). It's a false equivalence.
    I'm not saying they are a protected class. You're missing my point and if you seriously think that a gay man would defend bigotry or believe that bigots are an oppressed class then I'm genuinely shocked :v What I am saying is that's how it's going to get turned around when we start censoring hate speech. It's why it hasn't happened in America. Here, religious people believe they're being discriminated against because they can't deny service to LGBT+ people, and they say that laws can't be made to force them to do it because it's religious discrimination. This is a real thing that happens all the time and it's why I never advocate for censoring hate speech through the law.
    __________________






    Reply With Quote
      #29    
    Old July 4th, 2017 (4:04 PM).
    Adore's Avatar
    Adore Adore is offline
    Party.
       
      Join Date: Nov 2012
      Location: California
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Sassy
      Posts: 311
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Trev View Post
      I'm not saying they are a protected class. You're missing my point and if you seriously think that a gay man would defend bigotry or believe that bigots are an oppressed class then I'm genuinely shocked :v What I am saying is that's how it's going to get turned around when we start censoring hate speech. It's why it hasn't happened in America. Here, religious people believe they're being discriminated against because they can't deny service to LGBT+ people, and they say that laws can't be made to force them to do it because it's religious discrimination. This is a real thing that happens all the time and it's why I never advocate for censoring hate speech through the law.
      I'm gay too, lol. I understand, and you're right. That argument is all too common and successful here. But I'm saying that their logic is crap. They don't understand that secularism is law here, and that obeying that law isn't "discrimination."
      Reply With Quote
        #30    
      Old July 4th, 2017 (7:26 PM). Edited July 4th, 2017 by Tek.
      Tek's Avatar
      Tek Tek is offline
       
      Join Date: Oct 2013
      Location: Kansas City
      Age: 28
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Brave
      Posts: 936
      My view is that the statement "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." is to be taken at face value. It is not the place of government to regulate speech. At all. Period.

      It is the responsibility of each the members of a Republic to become the best versions of themselves and to assist the other members in that endeavor as much as possible. It's the only way a free Republic can remain in existence (and, on a side note, I think the erosion of our liberties and the systemic dysfunction we are dealing with is a failure over generations of people to engage in that pursuit).

      I think also that the Founding Fathers may have shared this view, given that they were fighting a longstanding tyrannical government, and that there are no caveats written into the Amendment - not about treason, libel, hate speech, none of it. They simply said "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #31    
      Old July 5th, 2017 (1:17 AM).
      Vragon
      Guest
         
        Posts: n/a
        So about, "hate speech", while I don't condone it being here I understand that we can't just censor things by using law. While yes they can use the whole "discrimination against us" argument, there's also the issue of what is hate speech's limits. The moment you start censoring things by law the sooner that can be abused.To me, speech shouldn't be tampered with bedsides what our laws already are.

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Trev View Post
        The problem with firing people from their job for hate speech is that they see it as a form of discrimination against them. Hence why we have those stupid "religious freedom" arguments when people want to say how much they hate gay people and not be judged/hated for it. We should still fire them but it really doesn't do anything to deter them from being total twats.
        Of course, however there is something that is needed to be understood about this whole thing. Government shouldn't censor speech, but that doesn't mean all speech is seen in a positivity. Society is in it's own way a "speech counter" to hate speech, since you'd have to have society on your side in order for what you to say not be in a positive light.
        Yes we haven't banned the KKK, but they aren't seen in a positive light.
        Yes there are still people calling for cops death, but outside the radical group there seen as bad.
        Yes there are still LGBT haters, but they are looked away from nowadays.

        My point is that while you can't have a law censor speech, society does a somewhat good job telling you which ones are bad. Yes it's not perfect, but when it comes to laws you can't have exceptions to rules. Society's view is easier to bend to good behavior.

        Oh and before anyone brings out the "What if society is supportive of that kind of talk,"
        1) America's society is pretty diverse. Some places are one thing others are another. Each one has their own speaking standards, so your dealing with a wide array of societal speaking standards.
        2) Society still has a sense of inclusion. America has been and still is evolving in terms of acceptance and inclusion. Everyone has an opinion and everyone can say said opinion, but society can say if that opinion should be looked well.
        3) Society can still in its own terms "Punish" those that do hate speech by shunning them. You see if a store does discriminate against a race, that business will most likely closed down due to negative reception and neglect from customers. Hate speech isn't taken lightly and those that support people who have made bad claims, don't want to lose reputation as well and don't want to support such people.
        Reply With Quote
          #32    
        Old July 5th, 2017 (7:04 AM).
        Trev's Avatar
        Trev Trev is offline
         
        Join Date: May 2012
        Age: 22
        Nature: Sassy
        Posts: 1,389
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Vragon View Post
        Of course, however there is something that is needed to be understood about this whole thing. Government shouldn't censor speech, but that doesn't mean all speech is seen in a positivity. Society is in it's own way a "speech counter" to hate speech, since you'd have to have society on your side in order for what you to say not be in a positive light.
        Yes we haven't banned the KKK, but they aren't seen in a positive light.
        Yes there are still people calling for cops death, but outside the radical group there seen as bad.
        Yes there are still LGBT haters, but they are looked away from nowadays.
        I know that, that's what I've been saying :v
        __________________






        Reply With Quote
          #33    
        Old July 5th, 2017 (8:30 AM).
        Vragon
        Guest
           
          Posts: n/a
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Trev View Post
          I know that, that's what I've been saying :v
          Trev, I wasn't saying you weren't. I was using your comment as a leap off to my extended detailed point. Sorry, if I wasn't clear about my usage of your quote, I meant no counter to your statement. I just wanted a good base so I didn't have to type so much but yeah, sorry about not being clear.....
          Reply With Quote
            #34    
          Old July 6th, 2017 (11:04 AM). Edited July 6th, 2017 by twocows.
          twocows's Avatar
          twocows twocows is offline
          Primary form of sustenance is cute images
           
          Join Date: Mar 2009
          Location: Michigan
          Age: 28
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Lax
          Posts: 4,269
          Ken White is one of my favorite bloggers ever and one of the main things he blogs about is free speech. He has had a lot to say about the topic over the years. I'd like to link a few of his posts because he's much more eloquent and informed about the topic than I am.
          https://www.popehat.com/2014/01/21/the-self-perpetuating-logic-of-censorship/
          https://www.popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/
          https://www.popehat.com/2017/02/10/erdogan-and-the-european-view-of-free-speech/ (NSFW text at the end)

          I could link many more, but these three seemed especially relevant to the current discussion. I've mentioned it before, but policing speech based on content can only end in one way: with those laws being used by those with power against those without it. I can't imagine anyone looking at our government and saying "yes, they should have the right to determine what kinds of things I can or cannot say." Moreover, I can't imagine anyone actually familiar with how the so-called "European system" of speech works actually supporting it. I'll take more speech protections over less any day.
          __________________
          8values
          Political Simulator
          Reply With Quote
            #35    
          Old July 6th, 2017 (11:25 AM).
          HIMDogson's Avatar
          HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
          Rationally Royalist
             
            Join Date: Jul 2017
            Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Calm
            Posts: 15
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by twocows View Post
            Ken White is one of my favorite bloggers ever and one of the main things he blogs about is free speech. He has had a lot to say about the topic over the years. I'd like to link a few of his posts because he's much more eloquent and informed about the topic than I am.
            https://www.popehat.com/2014/01/21/the-self-perpetuating-logic-of-censorship/
            https://www.popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/
            https://www.popehat.com/2017/02/10/erdogan-and-the-european-view-of-free-speech/ (NSFW text at the end)

            I could link many more, but these three seemed especially relevant to the current discussion. I've mentioned it before, but policing speech based on content can only end in one way: with those laws being used by those with power against those without it. I can't imagine anyone looking at our government and saying "yes, they should have the right to determine what kinds of things I can or cannot say." Moreover, I can't imagine anyone actually familiar with how the so-called "European system" of speech works actually supporting it. I'll take more speech protections over less any day.
            Few things. First, how is it inherently bad that speech laws would be used by those in power against those without it? In fact, if you dissect that statement, this essentially describes government; people in power governing people who aren't in power.

            Secondly, you object to the government determining what one can and cannot say. This frankly doesn't make sense; it can only be interpreted as a call for at least no restrictions on speech until the government is trustworthy(whatever that means) or for someone other than the government to be making these restrictions, in which case, who? The fact is that every country in the world with a functioning legal system has some restrictions on free speech; the only areas of difference ar equation exactly should be legal to say and what shouldn't. TL;DR: even America restricts slander and lo and behold, it has not devolved into an Orwellian dystopia. Some restrictions on free speech will always be needed and there isn't reason to believe extending this to hate speech will be the last straw setting society on an inevitable course towards tyranny.
            Reply With Quote
              #36    
            Old July 6th, 2017 (1:12 PM). Edited July 6th, 2017 by Tek.
            Tek's Avatar
            Tek Tek is offline
             
            Join Date: Oct 2013
            Location: Kansas City
            Age: 28
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Brave
            Posts: 936
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
            TL;DR: even America restricts slander and lo and behold, it has not devolved into an Orwellian dystopia. Some restrictions on free speech will always be needed and there isn't reason to believe extending this to hate speech will be the last straw setting society on an inevitable course towards tyranny.
            America today resembles Orwell's 1984 in many ways, actually. Cameras are installed at every intersection and in televisions which can be used and are being used to monitor behavior. Government agencies surreptitiously gather phone and email data and lie about it under oath. Government propaganda is now legal under the Countering Foreign Disinformation Act. News outlets contradict themselves constantly, I guess assuming no one will notice. Bad guys are characterized on national TV for us to collectively rage against.

            When citizens give their power to government by allowing it to regulate speech, free speech no longer exists; you are legally obligated not to say certain things. As has been said, when you trade liberty for security you end up with neither. Governments regularly abuse power, which is exactly why the US Constitution was designed to prevent the Government from being allowed to limit your speech and your armory.

            Without those two things, you are absolutely powerless against tyrants.
            __________________
            Reply With Quote
              #37    
            Old July 6th, 2017 (1:17 PM).
            twocows's Avatar
            twocows twocows is offline
            Primary form of sustenance is cute images
             
            Join Date: Mar 2009
            Location: Michigan
            Age: 28
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Lax
            Posts: 4,269
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
            Few things. First, how is it inherently bad that speech laws would be used by those in power against those without it?
            Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.

            Quote:
            In fact, if you dissect that statement, this essentially describes government; people in power governing people who aren't in power.
            And vesting too much power in the government is not a good thing, lest we find ourselves unable to oppose a tyrannical regime.

            Quote:
            Secondly, you object to the government determining what one can and cannot say. This frankly doesn't make sense; it can only be interpreted as a call for at least no restrictions on speech until the government is trustworthy(whatever that means) or for someone other than the government to be making these restrictions, in which case, who?
            We currently restrict a few very narrowly defined categories of speech; that is, we restrict speech in these categories regardless of "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Restrictions that regulate speech based on "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content" are what I universally object to because allowing the government to police speech based on what it says is (a) wide open to abuse and (b) unethical, as people should (and do) have the right to express any opinions, even if we think those opinions are awful.

            Moreover, I more broadly object to new categorical exceptions on speech; I think our existing set of narrowly-defined restrictions is more than adequate and doesn't meaningfully restrict what opinions and ideas people can express.

            Quote:
            The fact is that every country in the world with a functioning legal system has some restrictions on free speech
            That does not speak to whether this proposed new restriction on speech (in this case, "hate speech") is justifiable. It is my belief that it is not.

            Quote:
            the only areas of difference ar equation exactly should be legal to say and what shouldn't. TL;DR: even America restricts slander and lo and behold, it has not devolved into an Orwellian dystopia.
            Because as I have pointed out, that restriction on speech is (a) categorical, not content-based, and (b) very narrowly defined (at least in the US). The way defamation is defined in US law, I do not believe it presents a meaningful restriction on the ability of people to express their ideas and opinions.

            Quote:
            Some restrictions on free speech will always be needed and there isn't reason to believe extending this to hate speech will be the last straw setting society on an inevitable course towards tyranny.
            No, but it would be a step, because it's an extraordinarily bad idea. Would civilization break down overnight as a result? No. Would hate speech laws be used against people and groups who their proponents typically support, like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall St., and AntiFa? You would be incredibly naive to think they wouldn't. Moreover, you better believe that conservative Christians would use these same laws to restrict criticism and satire of Christianity.

            But that's assuming you want to create a categorical exception to hate speech. If you'd rather create a content-based exception to "only the bad kinds of hate speech," then you have an even more overt problem: who creates these exceptions? A bunch of rich old white men working on getting richer and older (and probably whiter if they could)? Because that's who currently holds the power, and that is traditionally who has held the power since our nation's inception. And how do we determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad?" Because there have been countless times in human history where the majority opinion about what was right was, in hindsight, incredibly unethical. You seem very optimistic about our current government's ability to only restrict the kinds of speech you think are bad; I am much less so. Moreover, even if I thought they could, I wouldn't, because it's not right. The proper response to bad ideas is not to hide them, it is to expose them to the light and illustrate why they are bad so that people who encounter those ideas are armed with the knowledge and wisdom to resist them.
            __________________
            8values
            Political Simulator
            Reply With Quote
              #38    
            Old July 6th, 2017 (1:31 PM). Edited July 6th, 2017 by Tek.
            Tek's Avatar
            Tek Tek is offline
             
            Join Date: Oct 2013
            Location: Kansas City
            Age: 28
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Brave
            Posts: 936
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by twocows View Post
            Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.
            It seems difficult to prove the inevitability of such abuse. A stronger argument is to point out that governments have abused their power over the governed throughout history, almost without exception.

            Which matters only to the extent that one is interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for oneself, one's family, and all other sentient beings.
            __________________
            Reply With Quote
              #39    
            Old July 6th, 2017 (1:50 PM).
            HIMDogson's Avatar
            HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
            Rationally Royalist
               
              Join Date: Jul 2017
              Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Calm
              Posts: 15
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by Tek View Post
              America today resembles Orwell's 1984 in many ways, actually. Cameras are installed at every intersection and in televisions which can be used and are being used to monitor behavior. Government agencies surreptitiously gather phone and email data and lie about it under oath. Government propaganda is now legal under the Countering Foreign Disinformation Act. News outlets contradict themselves constantly, I guess assuming no one will notice. Bad guys are characterized on national TV for us to collectively rage against.

              When citizens give their power to government by allowing it to regulate speech, free speech no longer exists; you are legally obligated not to say certain things. As has been said, when you trade liberty for security you end up with neither. Governments regularly abuse power, which is exactly why the US Constitution was designed to prevent the Government from being allowed to limit your speech and your armory.

              Without those two things, you are absolutely powerless against tyrants.
              Very few of these things I have problems with, especaillly not cameras being in public places. I think it would be a great benefit to fighting crime, and not prevent a lot of wrongful convictions due to unreliable eyewitness testimony. This goes for both of you, but I don't think that the idea of a citizenry able to resist tyranny is a useful concept. As long as the government is democratic, I think, you don't have the right to violently rebel under any circumstances. If the government isn't democratic, then, naturally, you won't have the right to revolt. Basically, in any society that will logically have it the right to revolt will only ever be harmful. Furthermore, equipping citizens to revolt in practice only breaks down rule of law, which is how throughout history authoritarian regimes have arisen. Democracy cannot exist without rule of law, and authoritarian leaders, from Lenin to Mao to Pol Pot to Robespierre to Franco, have more often than not come to power through revolution, rather than through democratic election. Hitler is the main exception, of course, but if an autocrat comes to power democratically you still don't have the right to resist them until they become an autocrat.

              Right, answers for twocows in bold.

              Quote:
              Originally Posted by twocows View Post
              Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.
              Inevitable is a strong word here, given that there are plenty of examples of societies where this by and large has not happened. Again, as I said before, I am not for the banning of hate speech as long as hate speech remains the ill defined term that it is. However, I believe that to define that term is, in fact, doable.

              And vesting too much power in the government is not a good thing, lest we find ourselves unable to oppose a tyrannical regime.
              See above.

              We currently restrict a few very narrowly defined categories of speech; that is, we restrict speech in these categories regardless of "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Restrictions that regulate speech based on "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content" are what I universally object to because allowing the government to police speech based on what it says is (a) wide open to abuse and (b) unethical, as people should (and do) have the right to express any opinions, even if we think those opinions are awful.
              First point here is that it's wide open to abuse. I hold that it is not wide open to abuse as long as the exact types of speech banned are clearly defined, and any additions to that list are added democratically(possibly by referendum). Secondly, saying that something should remain the case because someone has the right to that isn't enough. I know that, as it stands in the US, people do have this right. I'm arguing that they shouldn't.

              Moreover, I more broadly object to new categorical exceptions on speech; I think our existing set of narrowly-defined restrictions is more than adequate and doesn't meaningfully restrict what opinions and ideas people can express.
              My main problem with America's current restrictions is that it allows speech that is de facto incitement to violence too much leeway. Like, if I say "All Muslims are terrorists and they threaten you every day" that is t technically calling for violence, but it can be easily interpreted this way. Of course, it should be up to a judge and jury to decide if it was REASONABLE to determine if what was said qualifies as hate speech.

              That does not speak to whether this proposed new restriction on speech (in this case, "hate speech") is justifiable. It is my belief that it is not.

              Because as I have pointed out, that restriction on speech is (a) categorical, not content-based, and (b) very narrowly defined (at least in the US). The way defamation is defined in US law, I do not believe it presents a meaningful restriction on the ability of people to express their ideas and opinions.

              No, but it would be a step, because it's an extraordinarily bad idea. Would civilization break down overnight as a result? No. Would hate speech laws be used against people and groups who their proponents typically support, like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall St., and AntiFa? You would be incredibly naive to think they wouldn't. Moreover, you better believe that conservative Christians would use these same laws to restrict criticism and satire of Christianity.
              I am all for Antifa being cracked down upon(they are vigilantes at best, and outright criminal thugs at worst), and if BLM do anything that would violate the law, then those members that do this should be punished. Same goes for Occupy Wall Street. Calling for violence against the White Race or Christians, including implicitly, should be punished like any other race; I don't see why you think I wouldn't support this. As for Christians, if the majority of people truly vote for this, well, that's a shame(I'm a Monarchist so also think that any restrictions should come with the consent of the monarch but let's not clutter up this any further because I already released one anti-Paine manifesto) but you seem to be under the misconception in general that I favor the passing of a law that says "anything that can be offensive is banned". That isn't the case; I think that banned speech should be extended to a very specific type of speech, of which critiquing a religion is not, nor is it in most European countries(remember when there was the Mohammed drawing controversy in Denmark? Denmark allowed that)

              But that's assuming you want to create a categorical exception to hate speech. If you'd rather create a content-based exception to "only the bad kinds of hate speech," then you have an even more overt problem: who creates these exceptions? A bunch of rich old white men working on getting richer and older (and probably whiter if they could)? Because that's who currently holds the power, and that is traditionally who has held the power since our nation's inception. And how do we determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad?" Because there have been countless times in human history where the majority opinion about what was right was, in hindsight, incredibly unethical. You seem very optimistic about our current government's ability to only restrict the kinds of speech you think are bad; I am much less so. Moreover, even if I thought they could, I wouldn't, because it's not right. The proper response to bad ideas is not to hide them, it is to expose them to the light and illustrate why they are bad so that people who encounter those ideas are armed with the knowledge and wisdom to resist them.
              This logic is flawed at best, frankly. Yes, the majority can be wrong. But what other basis are you going to use for determining if laws are morally justified? The at the time extremely crazy opinions of a few forward thinking radicals? That isn't very democratic. Your last argument is a common one. The kind of speech I'm proposing opposing is never used with the intent of seriously convincing anyone, of engaging in a good faith debate. It's used with the intent of rallying a crowd. It's the speech that Marat used to convince the Parisian mobs to tear women and children apart, and it is a threat to public order and, therefore, democracy.
              Reply With Quote
                #40    
              Old July 6th, 2017 (3:23 PM).
              Tek's Avatar
              Tek Tek is offline
               
              Join Date: Oct 2013
              Location: Kansas City
              Age: 28
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Brave
              Posts: 936
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
              Basically, in any society that will logically have it the right to revolt will only ever be harmful. Furthermore, equipping citizens to revolt in practice only breaks down rule of law, which is how throughout history authoritarian regimes have arisen.
              Both statements can be disproven with actual examples (since you've framed them in absolute terms), the American colonial revolution being the primary example. But I won't say any more about that here since it's getting off-topic.
              __________________
              Reply With Quote
                #41    
              Old July 6th, 2017 (10:51 PM).
              HIMDogson's Avatar
              HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
              Rationally Royalist
                 
                Join Date: Jul 2017
                Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
                Gender: Male
                Nature: Calm
                Posts: 15
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by Tek View Post
                Both statements can be disproven with actual examples (since you've framed them in absolute terms), the American colonial revolution being the primary example. But I won't say any more about that here since it's getting off-topic.
                American Revolution was when the colonists didn't have representation.

                So, how would, out of curiosity, you guys feel about this: a law that says people who say things can be held accountable for violent actions committed as a result of what they say, with a judge to determine if it was reasonable to assume that violence is the logical conclusion of their words.
                Reply With Quote
                  #42    
                Old July 7th, 2017 (9:36 AM).
                Tek's Avatar
                Tek Tek is offline
                 
                Join Date: Oct 2013
                Location: Kansas City
                Age: 28
                Gender: Male
                Nature: Brave
                Posts: 936
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
                So, how would, out of curiosity, you guys feel about this: a law that says people who say things can be held accountable for violent actions committed as a result of what they say, with a judge to determine if it was reasonable to assume that violence is the logical conclusion of their words.
                Something along those lines seems appropriate and doesn't limit the content one's speech.

                Separately, I think the discussion about when and whether a person can be held accountable for another person's actions is useful.
                __________________
                Reply With Quote
                  #43    
                Old July 7th, 2017 (11:10 AM).
                HIMDogson's Avatar
                HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
                Rationally Royalist
                   
                  Join Date: Jul 2017
                  Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
                  Gender: Male
                  Nature: Calm
                  Posts: 15
                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by Tek View Post
                  Something along those lines seems appropriate and doesn't limit the content one's speech.

                  Separately, I think the discussion about when and whether a person can be held accountable for another person's actions is useful.
                  Much as I am loathe to leave subjective stuff like this up to judges, I think that there really can't be a clear line of what one should be convicted for or not. Sometimes there needs to be ambiguity. So for example if someone said "we should curtail immigration due to its economic pressures" and anti-immigrant riots followed they can't be responsible whereas if they said something more racist culpability is more reasonable. Specific criterion for stuff like this is hard, though.
                  Reply With Quote
                    #44    
                  Old July 7th, 2017 (5:13 PM).
                  Tek's Avatar
                  Tek Tek is offline
                   
                  Join Date: Oct 2013
                  Location: Kansas City
                  Age: 28
                  Gender: Male
                  Nature: Brave
                  Posts: 936
                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
                  So for example if someone said "we should curtail immigration due to its economic pressures" and anti-immigrant riots followed they can't be responsible whereas if they said something more racist culpability is more reasonable.
                  We may be wandering off-topic again, but I can't... I won't....

                  The argument you're making is "That guy said something racist, so now it's his fault if I violently attack people!"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't even express my opinion about that statement politely or constructively.
                  __________________
                  Reply With Quote
                    #45    
                  Old July 7th, 2017 (10:35 PM).
                  HIMDogson's Avatar
                  HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
                  Rationally Royalist
                     
                    Join Date: Jul 2017
                    Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Calm
                    Posts: 15
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by Tek View Post
                    We may be wandering off-topic again, but I can't... I won't....

                    The argument you're making is "That guy said something racist, so now it's his fault if I violently attack people!"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't even express my opinion about that statement politely or constructively.
                    No, if they said something racist and in a way that implied violence was the solution. Like "Mexicans are all drug dealers, and we may need to take drastic action to protect ourselves". The people committing the violence would still be punished, and much more harshly.
                    Reply With Quote
                      #46    
                    Old July 10th, 2017 (10:15 AM). Edited July 10th, 2017 by twocows.
                    twocows's Avatar
                    twocows twocows is offline
                    Primary form of sustenance is cute images
                     
                    Join Date: Mar 2009
                    Location: Michigan
                    Age: 28
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Lax
                    Posts: 4,269
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
                    American Revolution was when the colonists didn't have representation.

                    So, how would, out of curiosity, you guys feel about this: a law that says people who say things can be held accountable for violent actions committed as a result of what they say, with a judge to determine if it was reasonable to assume that violence is the logical conclusion of their words.
                    You can broaden (and possibly narrow) that to just "imminent lawless action" and you'd have something I both agree with and that is already considered part of US law. Incitement to imminent lawless action is already considered a crime and not protected by the First Amendment; there's even a legal standard to determine what speech falls under this and what doesn't. I wouldn't want to expand the scope of that any, if that's what you're asking. I think it's fine as is.

                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
                    Right, answers for twocows in bold.
                    This is very difficult to read. Also, I can't quote any of it due to the way quotes work.
                    __________________
                    8values
                    Political Simulator
                    Reply With Quote
                      #47    
                    Old July 10th, 2017 (11:09 AM).
                    Kanzler's Avatar
                    Kanzler Kanzler is offline
                    naughty biscotti
                     
                    Join Date: Jul 2008
                    Location: Toronto
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Relaxed
                    Posts: 5,918
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by Tek View Post
                    We may be wandering off-topic again, but I can't... I won't....

                    The argument you're making is "That guy said something racist, so now it's his fault if I violently attack people!"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't even express my opinion about that statement politely or constructively.
                    I think it would be both people's faults, to the extent that the first guy was inciting of violence or criminal acts, and that the second guy actually carried out some violence or criminal act. I think there is definitely a place to criminalize people who incite crime, though.
                    Reply With Quote
                      #48    
                    Old July 10th, 2017 (10:39 PM).
                    HIMDogson's Avatar
                    HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
                    Rationally Royalist
                       
                      Join Date: Jul 2017
                      Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Calm
                      Posts: 15
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      You can broaden (and possibly narrow) that to just "imminent lawless action" and you'd have something I both agree with and that is already considered part of US law. Incitement to imminent lawless action is already considered a crime and not protected by the First Amendment; there's even a legal standard to determine what speech falls under this and what doesn't. I wouldn't want to expand the scope of that any, if that's what you're asking. I think it's fine as is.


                      This is very difficult to read. Also, I can't quote any of it due to the way quotes work.
                      Tldr: the system isn't open for abuse as long as hate speech is clearly defined, which is why I'm not in favor of hate speech laws until such a thing has been defined. If leftists break the law they should be punished like anyone else. The example in the blog you mentioned I have no problem with; saying that it's justified to attack people at rallies is clear incitement to violence. I also think we should actively crack down upon Antifa due to their blatant disregard for rule of law. Finally, yes, the majority can and has been wrong, but what other way should we make laws besides majority rules?
                      Reply With Quote
                        #49    
                      Old July 12th, 2017 (10:35 AM).
                      twocows's Avatar
                      twocows twocows is offline
                      Primary form of sustenance is cute images
                       
                      Join Date: Mar 2009
                      Location: Michigan
                      Age: 28
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Lax
                      Posts: 4,269
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by HIMDogson View Post
                      Tldr: the system isn't open for abuse as long as hate speech is clearly defined, which is why I'm not in favor of hate speech laws until such a thing has been defined.
                      Then how would you define it? It sounds more like you're talking about incitement based on the things you've said, although your definition of incitement seems a bit broad.
                      Quote:
                      The example in the blog you mentioned I have no problem with; saying that it's justified to attack people at rallies is clear incitement to violence.
                      Saying that you don't have any problem with people committing violence isn't incitement; you're not actively encouraging people to commit crimes. It might be stupid and deeply concerning depending on the context, but it's not incitement. Incitement would be if I started telling people they should commit violence and break the law, not just justifying that behavior after the fact. If that was incitement, criminal defense attorneys would have a much more difficult job, as part of their job frequently entails convincing others that some violent crime was justified.
                      Quote:
                      I also think we should actively crack down upon Antifa due to their blatant disregard for rule of law.
                      Right, we should do this because they are breaking the law and being actively violent, not because of their rhetoric. I might strongly disagree with what they have to say, but as long as they're not committing violence or inciting people to violence, I think they should have the right to say what they want.
                      Quote:
                      Finally, yes, the majority can and has been wrong, but what other way should we make laws besides majority rules?
                      The US system is designed to some extent to protect minority groups from having their rights taken away purely on the basis of majority rule and I think it does this pretty well most of the time. Personally, my ideal kind of system would be a representative technocracy, but that's outside the scope of this thread.
                      __________________
                      8values
                      Political Simulator
                      Reply With Quote
                        #50    
                      Old July 13th, 2017 (12:51 AM).
                      HIMDogson's Avatar
                      HIMDogson HIMDogson is offline
                      Rationally Royalist
                         
                        Join Date: Jul 2017
                        Location: Prague, rightful domains of the most noble House of Hapsburg
                        Gender: Male
                        Nature: Calm
                        Posts: 15
                        Quote:
                        Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                        Then how would you define it? It sounds more like you're talking about incitement based on the things you've said, although your definition of incitement seems a bit broad.

                        Saying that you don't have any problem with people committing violence isn't incitement; you're not actively encouraging people to commit crimes. It might be stupid and deeply concerning depending on the context, but it's not incitement. Incitement would be if I started telling people they should commit violence and break the law, not just justifying that behavior after the fact. If that was incitement, criminal defense attorneys would have a much more difficult job, as part of their job frequently entails convincing others that some violent crime was justified.

                        Right, we should do this because they are breaking the law and being actively violent, not because of their rhetoric. I might strongly disagree with what they have to say, but as long as they're not committing violence or inciting people to violence, I think they should have the right to say what they want.

                        The US system is designed to some extent to protect minority groups from having their rights taken away purely on the basis of majority rule and I think it does this pretty well most of the time. Personally, my ideal kind of system would be a representative technocracy, but that's outside the scope of this thread.
                        I have no idea as of yet what specific parameters should be set down for what hate speech is. All I can really say is that it by definition varies by context; saying 'black people are rapists' is very different in America than it is in Japan, for example, because of the history behind the sentiment and the violence it is likely to lead to in the US that chances are it won't in Japan. That's why this should be left up to judges. And I think cases of hate speech that don't lead to violence aren't worth pursuing unless a country's law enforcement is perfectly equipped to handle every single case. I also don't support any of the hate speech laws currently at play in most European countries(a specification born out of ignorance of the nuances of hate speech laws in, say, Finland).

                        There's a difference between arguing if one should commit violence in a general instance, like, say, a political rally, vs if one should have committed violence in a specific case. I retread the post, and her exact words were "self defense"- basically any person who isn't Gandhi thinks that you SHOULD defend yourself. She isn't saying that it's okay to do it, she's saying you should do it. I would charge her as accessory to any violence that takes place at rallies she mentions, and then a trial can determine if she actually incited violence taking place.

                        I agree with the third statement, I was simply rejecting the idea that I, or the majority of leftists(which I wouldn't entirely call myself based on being a monarchist) support violent criminals like Antifa.

                        A Technocracy is a system of elites controlling a government on basis of their skill. Furthermore, it is frequently authoritarian. Why would this system protect free speech?
                        Reply With Quote
                        Reply

                        Quick Reply

                        Join the conversation!

                        Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

                        Create a PokéCommunity Account
                        Thread Tools

                        Posting Rules
                        You may not post new threads
                        You may not post replies
                        You may not post attachments
                        You may not edit your posts

                        BB code is On
                        Smilies are On
                        [IMG] code is On
                        HTML code is Off
                        Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

                        Forum Jump


                        All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:39 AM.