Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

It doesn't matter how much they may have provoked the guy, attacking people isn't an acceptable thing to do. So yes, thats how it works. If one guy says bad things about someone else, and the other guy uses violence to deal with it. Its not the first guys fault, its the guy who punched him who is wrong.

This all comes together to form a very violent society, where problems are solved (or escalate) after harm has already come.

Why is it that if you call upon the death of a single person, it's conspiracy to murder, but if it's a whole race, it's suddenly OK?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why is it that if you call upon the death of a single person, it's conspiracy to murder, but if it's a whole race, it's suddenly OK?

Calling upon killing and expressing belief in killing are not the same.

If you beat someone up or you killed someone, that is an action. If you talk, and express an idea, that isn't an action, and it doesn't directly harm anyone.

It doesn't create a violent society, since the violent people(the ones attacking people) are arrested. The ones left, are the ones peacefully expressing their ideas.

If you disagree with someone you talk to them and get them to change their mind. You don't attack them.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

This all comes together to form a very violent society, where problems are solved (or escalate) after harm has already come.

Why is it that if you call upon the death of a single person, it's conspiracy to murder, but if it's a whole race, it's suddenly OK?

One is a direct threat, while the other is an indirect threat.

It's pretty simple really. You should be allowed to say anything you want. People should be allowed to say anything they want about what you say. Or vice versa. No one should be put in jail for anything they say.

It's up to the people to silence other people by using evidence and logic. Or, less fortunately, hate and emotions.

But hey, we don't even have free speech in Australia. They're still "deciding over it".

While Ann Coulter makes me shiver.. free speech is free speech.

Hypothetical cases aren't really substantive. I really don't think that people
would start yelling 'bomb' on the plane, just because it would be illegal to do
so, while the (financial) consequences would still prevail. Also, I think that
these cases of 'free speech' fall into a different judicial domain.

To conclude that people don't do it, just because there is a law, is a little premature.

The next step is that limitation of free speech is used in non-hypothetical
scenarios that are suddenly not 'obviously inappropriate' anymore.

Soooo.. to adress the more important issue:
Man, how dumb is that Ann Coulter..?

Originally Posted by dajo

Man, how dumb is that Ann Coulter..?

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.

Originally Posted by dajo

Hypothetical cases aren't really substantive. I really don't think that people
would start yelling 'bomb' on the plane, just because it would be illegal to do
so, while the (financial) consequences would still prevail. Also, I think that
these cases of 'free speech' fall into a different judicial domain.

The bomb example was just to point out that the hate speech laws here are directed towards people that are actively disrupting public order and inciting violence, rather than expressing a belief.


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