Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 =.=