Free speech vs hate speech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

UM, while your newfound anti-fascist alarmism is hilarious, don't go all tinfoil-hat on us man.

---

"Newfound"? WTF? :? I've had a problem with the government power that comes with socialism ever since I learned what socialism is. You might have picked up on some of my attitude about it. You know what I think of taking away gun rights and free speech, which the Democrats here are working on doing right this second. Have you read what I think of the war on drugs and the death of the Fourth Amendment? I've been saying it here since before you joined. Did you honestly forget what my views on the Hussein regime are and why I always support national liberation efforts that can work? What are you talking about? Do you have amnesia? Talk to me.

I've never seen you genuinely concerned that your country would imminently turn into some kind of totalitarian regime.

People don't realize that their rights end at the the rights of others. Defenders of totally free speech just want to overstep that line and disrespect the rights of others - the rights of not being socially ostracised and hated, the rights of not having hateful prejudice against them publicly advocated.

Anyone who says that her speech is within her rights is just a hater himself.

------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I've had a problem with the government power that comes with socialism ever since I learned what socialism is.

---

I don't wanna go in an argument with you about this. I just want you to answer me one question. Straight and quick:

Have you ever wondered about the possibility that you may have been taught wrong?

For the sake of diplomacy I will also answer my own question: Yes, I have, upon every new thing I've learned.

If people have such contrasting and vehement opinions, it must be a really important subject. That's why I have in mind I must really make enough effort and take the right opinion, since it is so important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I've never seen you genuinely concerned that your country would imminently turn into some kind of totalitarian regime.

---

I've said it a bunch, especially when talking about church and state issues. I have said many times here that mixing church and state at all is a drive down the road to theocracy. I never related the totalitarian threat to free speech before this thread because, before the healthcare bill got passed, the left was not gung ho against freedom of speech. It's a brand new trend, and it is deeply disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Defenders of totally free speech just want to overstep that line and disrespect the rights of others - the rights of not being socially ostracised and hated, the rights of not having hateful prejudice against them publicly advocated.

---

Those are not legitimate rights. Enforcing them would require a ridiculously oppressive government.

Also, I have seen you spew plenty of hate here. In fact, you just publicly dissed supporters of free speech and called them an insulting name. You want them to be socially ostracized and hated, as you just condemned and hated them yourself and encouraged the mentality. What kind of jail sentence do you think you deserve for it? Give me a time range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Have you ever wondered about the possibility that you may have been taught wrong?

---

That would be "reasoned wrongly". I have questioned the idea a bunch, and I have given you and many others lots of chances to prove the truth of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Those are not legitimate rights. Enforcing them would require a ridiculously oppressive government.

---

They are legitimate rights. And would it be an oppressive government, or a government protective of its fellow minorities?

Also, thanks for answering the question, I really appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

They are legitimate rights. And would it be an oppressive government, or a government protective of its fellow minorities?

---

How else would it be enforced? "Sir, we have a witness (your ex girlfriend) who says that you called Republicans a bunch of religious nuts. Please put your hands on the car. You have the right to remain silent..." "Uh, Officer Smith, a lady at a trailer park claims that you called the Green Bay Packers assholes. Put your hands behind your back. You have the right to remain silent..." "Hey, we talked to that guy you talked to for five seconds at the gas station earlier today. You are under arrest for calling George W. Bush a gay basher..." Do you see that leading to a better society?

So, what kind of sentence do you deserve for what you said about supporters of free speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How else would it be enforced? "Sir, we have a witness (your ex girlfriend) who says that you called Republicans a bunch of religious nuts. Please put your hands on the car. You have the right to remain silent..." "Uh, Officer Smith, a lady at a trailer park claims that you called the Green Bay Packers assholes. Put your hands behind your back. You have the right to remain silent..." "Hey, we talked to that guy you talked to for five seconds at the gas station earlier today. You are under arrest for calling George W. Bush a gay basher..." Do you see that leading to a better society?

So, what kind of sentence do you deserve for what you said about supporters of free speech?

---

The people who felt attacked by someone's public speech would make a complaint about violation of moral rights, and a judge would then analyse the case. I think the punishment would be proportional to the severity of the offense and its reach. No, I don't mean jail nor millionaire restitutions; I mean public apologies and social work.

You seem to think all crimes involve being arrested. If that's the case in your country, I feel very sorry for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The people who felt attacked by someone's public speech would make a complaint about violation of moral rights, and a judge would then analyse the case. I think the punishment would be proportional to the severity of the offense and its reach. No, I don't mean jail nor millionaire restitutions; I mean public apologies and social work.

You seem to think all crimes involve being arrested. If that's the case in your country, I feel very sorry for you.

---

You came across like you think insults should be considered serious crimes. So you should apologize to supporters of free speech and do some social work? When do you plan to do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you should apologize to supporters of free speech and do some social work? When do you plan to do it?

---

Man, don't come with lame arguments you don't actually mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Man, don't come with lame arguments you don't actually mean.

---

That's some major irony there.

Sorry, I assumed you meant what you said about apologies and social work.

Arguments between Kromoh and UM are like marshmallow pie--by the time you get there, what's the fucking point at all?

You seem not to know what a hate crime is =.=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You seem not to know what a hate crime is =.=

---

RHETORIC

What do you believe, man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

RHETORIC

What do you believe, man?

---

I believe there is a very strong distinction between a random insult and a hate crime. And I couldn't care less about rhetoric. You surely would realize this if you saw me in a proper discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Arguments between Kromoh and UM are like marshmallow pie--by the time you get there, what's the fucking point at all?

---

Way to back up your bizarre point with... nothing.

The truth is, UniversalMind and I will eventually get married and adopt 7 children in the end. We're like Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I believe there is a very strong distinction between a random insult and a hate crime. And I couldn't care less about rhetoric. You surely would realize this if you saw me in a proper discussion.

---

Son, I've seen you in discussions proper, improper and wholly ridiculous for years on end. You care about coming out looking RIGHT, and you'll never be a for-shit scientist until you get over that bullshit.

The distinction between a random insult and a hate crime is physical assault, generally speaking. I'm largely with you, here. The main reason for the institution of hate crimes in the USA was that whole judiciaries were/are corrupt in favor of ideological minorities, majorities, or pluralities. That situation persists, with more examples than I'd care to name, but the solution is not to instill an alternate authoritarian rule. The best solution would likely have less to do with punishment and more to do with bringing people inside, rather than isolating them, much like the prison system, but the fact is your society should see more fully to establishing some degree of stability (being the largest government in your quadrisphere) before dictating terms on a global scale. Step up and get something done before you start issuing global demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I never related the totalitarian threat to free speech before this thread because, before the healthcare bill got passed, the left was not gung ho against freedom of speech. It's a brand new trend, and it is deeply disturbing.

---

Why do you say the left is against free speech?
That's basically the opposite of the definition of left.
Republicans are way more likely to bring in laws restricting free speech. Such as the law where, if you were arrested for marijuana possession, you couldn't even say the words "medical marijuana" or you would lose the right to defend yourself further.

I assume you're talking about the hate crime thing. It's kind of retarded, not because of repressing your right to say anything you want, but because it's akin to putting someone higher than another. If you bash a gay person you get a harsher penalty than bashing a straight person, if you said something derogatory during or before the bashing. But you can still say anything you want, just don't assault anyone afterward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Why do you say the left is against free speech?
That's basically the opposite of the definition of left.
Republicans are way more likely to bring in laws restricting free speech. Such as the law where, if you were arrested for marijuana possession, you couldn't even say the words "medical marijuana" or you would lose the right to defend yourself further.

I assume you're talking about the hate crime thing. It's kind of retarded, not because of repressing your right to say anything you want, but because it's akin to putting someone higher than another. If you bash a gay person you get a harsher penalty than bashing a straight person, if you said something derogatory during or before the bashing. But you can still say anything you want, just don't assault anyone afterward.

---

Many prominent Democrats in the U.S. are going nuts right now because of the backlash against the healthcare bill. They are saying that expressing anger against the bill could incite violence and should therefore be illegal. They want people arrested for trash talking the healthcare bill.

You still have legal rights even if you say "medical marijuana".

Apologies for my last post, which was...not super-coherent :paranoid:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I assume you're talking about the hate crime thing. It's kind of retarded, not because of repressing your right to say anything you want, but because it's akin to putting someone higher than another. If you bash a gay person you get a harsher penalty than bashing a straight person, if you said something derogatory during or before the bashing. But you can still say anything you want, just don't assault anyone afterward.

---

I don't know how much these laws really help, but they exist to counteract the notion--in police and judges, as well as criminals--that some minorities are 'fair game,' and less deserving of the protection of the law. Yes, it's elevating minorities: to full citizenship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UM

Many prominent Democrats in the U.S. are going nuts right now because of the backlash against the healthcare bill. They are saying that expressing anger against the bill could incite violence and should therefore be illegal. They want people arrested for trash talking the healthcare bill.

---

They're moving to censure (not censor) their colleagues in office for spouting off hyperbole about the end of the Republic when that talk has already incited violence and plans for violence. They're pointing out that their colleagues, who are in leadership positions, are acting irresponsibly. That's a far cry from having "people arrested for trash talking the healthcare bill."

You haven't heard them say that people who have already done it should be arrested? It's not just politicians saying it. Chris Matthews and such are going off about it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You haven't heard them say that people who have already done it should be arrested? It's not just politicians saying it. Chris Matthews and such are going off about it too.

---

Source Needed

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffre...nal-incitement

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4124222/f...ylist_id=87651

Make sure you check this one out...

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/en...irst-amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

She is light years from dumb. Idiots don't graduate from Ivy League law schools. Her debate skills are amazing, and I think she is one of the most intelligent people in all of politics. Her problem is that she is bonkers as Hell cuckoo, or at least says stuff that would put her on that level if she were serious. Realistically, I think she is a genius who knows how to press society's buttons, create worldwide shit storms, and make gazillions of dollars off her political books. She is good friends with Bill Maher. Go figure.

---

a'ight. But it's not what I was trying to get at.

I don't know that much about her and surely she is no idiot, but you
can still be pretty dumb, even if you're smart. Know what I mean? Anyway,
I acknowledge the fact that she is rather crazy then stupid. But my point
was to focus on her insane statements and flawed logic to discredit her,
rather then forbid her to voice her "opinion" at all.

A lot of people actually do believe that they have a right, not to be offended by things. There is no such right. There is also no rights saying people have to like or respect you.

A hate crime is someone physically attacking you. You can not commit a hate crime by just talking, and speaking an opinion.

As for the other issue, people in congress are allowed to say whatever they want. Its always been tradition that memebers of congress in a session of congress can literary say anything, and they can't be held responsible for slander or liable or any other crime.