Free speech vs hate speech

So recently, Ann Coulter, an American ultra-conservative christian nut, was touring a couple of Canadian universities giving speeches. She's responsible for such intellectual gems as:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

---

She was due to speak at the University of Ottawa this week, but organizers cancelled the event at the last minute citing safety concerns as a couple thousand students protested against her at the entrance. The protesters were peaceful, and while police was called, no incidents or arrests were reported.

To add fuel to the fire, a senior official at the university warned Coulter before her visit that her typical rhetoric could potentially violate Canadian hate speech laws, and that she should educate herself on what is "acceptable" in Canada. Advocating genocide or inciting hatred against an identifiable group is prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada, and provinces have similar laws.

This is sparking some controversy over freedom of speech on both sides of the border. Personally I feel that freedom of speech should come with a measure of common sense. Too long have hatemongers hidden behind the absolute right to free speech to spread their racism and violence. I'm sure this was not the intent of our respective politicians while drafting our rights to free speech.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...niversity.html

Questions? Comments? Ideas?

I think theres a fine line between hate speech and free speech. If your going to do hate speech, do it respectively.

That is the craziest of all of the Ann Coulter quotes, and I have talked about it before. I highly disagree with her ideas on targetting civilians during the war on terror, but her comments are not support for genocide. They are supportive of an age old war tactic which actually has brought down menacing governments in some cases. It should not be illegal to advocate genocide any way. It should be illegal to try to bring it about by engaging in a plan for it. There is a difference.

The government cannot be trusted with too much power. Free speech is nothing to screw with. Once you open the door you want to open, a horrible precedent is set, and it can lead all the way to a totalitarian state. You seem to have this major trust in government. Considering how full of shit and evil politicians are, why do you trust government so much? Politicians want to be as powerful as they can be. It is what they are all about. Only a freedom loving population can keep freedom preserved. Once the masses tell politicians it's okay to start taking away freedom, the politicians are fine with it and get very excited. Let's not let those snakes have too much control.

Also, those protesters were not peaceful. They were perhaps nonviolent, but not peaceful. They were screaming with severe hatred. They are closed-minded, intolerant, viciously hateful opposers of free speech. They are scum.

But if you support freedom of speech then you support their right to scream with severe hatred. :l

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

But if you support freedom of speech then you support their right to scream with severe hatred. :l

---

That is correct. I do. I also support my right to say what I think about those pieces of shit who were so closed-minded and intolerant about Ann Coulter's scheduled speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, those protesters were not peaceful. They were perhaps nonviolent, but not peaceful. They were screaming with severe hatred. They are closed-minded, intolerant, viciously hateful opposers of free speech. They are scum.

---

I realize you aren't saying that these people should be restricted, but don't you see the contradiction in supporting Coulter's right to say that we should carpet bomb and kill civilians and then calling these protesters scum?

Should someone who is advocating restrictions on free speech be free to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is the craziest of all of the Ann Coulter quotes, and I have talked about it before. I highly disagree with her ideas on targetting civilians during the war on terror, but her comments are not support for genocide. They are supportive of an age old war tactic which actually has brought down menacing governments in some cases. It should not be illegal to advocate genocide any way. It should be illegal to try to bring it about by engaging in a plan for it. There is a difference.

The government cannot be trusted with too much power. Free speech is nothing to screw with. Once you open the door you want to open, a horrible precedent is set, and it can lead all the way to a totalitarian state. You seem to have this major trust in government. Considering how full of shit and evil politicians are, why do you trust government so much? Politicians want to be as powerful as they can be. It is what they are all about. Only a freedom loving population can keep freedom preserved. Once the masses tell politicians it's okay to start taking away freedom, the politicians are fine with it and get very excited. Let's not let those snakes have too much control.

Also, those protesters were not peaceful. They were perhaps nonviolent, but not peaceful. They were screaming with severe hatred. They are closed-minded, intolerant, viciously hateful opposers of free speech. They are scum.

---

She wasn't going to be automatically charged, it was just a rather harsh warning to show some respect. Racist comments in general are tolerated, she even made a couple in a previous speech in London, Ontario. You really have to be inciting violence and promoting hate for the laws to take effect, beyond sarcasm and ignorance. To me advocating for genocide is the first step in planning one. Honestly what positive outcome can come anyways from advocating genocide?

In my experience, Canadian politicians have been full of shit, childish, incompetent, but never evil. I could understand how this would be a very dangerous law in other countries, but Canada has been very responsible so far and is simply reenforcing the people's right against discrimination.

Quote:

---

That is correct. I do. I also support my right to say what I think about those pieces of shit who were so closed-minded and intolerant about Ann Coulter's scheduled speech.

---

But you already said you disagree with her? If somebody had said 'we should kill foreign leaders and convert their countries to Christianity' I'd probably be screaming at the evil bitch too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I realize you aren't saying that these people should be restricted, but don't you see the contradiction in supporting Coulter's right to say that we should carpet bomb and kill civilians and then calling these protesters scum?

---

No, I don't see the contradiction. What is it?

I have not advocated restricting the speech of the scum. I think Ann Coulter is a fucking psycho for wanting to target civilians in the Middle East, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Should someone who is advocating restrictions on free speech be free to do so?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Honestly what positive outcome can come anyways from advocating genocide?

---

Not really any other than interesting conversations about it, but that's beside the point. Whether a positive outcome can come from something should not be the basis for deciding whether it should be legal. I have heard lots of Republicans say drugs should be illegal because no good comes from them. I think they are way off with that reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In my experience, Canadian politicians have been full of shit, childish, incompetent, but never evil. I could understand how this would be a very dangerous law in other countries, but Canada has been very responsible so far and is simply reenforcing the people's right against discrimination.

---

How do you know they are not evil? People who are full of shit with their political power are evil. Anybody in that kind of position has to be intellectually honest to not be evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

But you already said you disagree with her? If somebody had said 'we should kill foreign leaders and convert their countries to Christianity' I'd probably be screaming at the evil bitch too.

---

What exactly are you saying? I am very supportive of free speech, even from people I think are scum. I don't know what you are confused about.

I'm confused why you think they're scum when all they were doing was exercising their freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm confused why you think they're scum when all they were doing was exercising their freedom of speech.

---

They were acting like closed-minded assholes with it. The fact that a person acts within his legal rights does not mean he is not being a bad person. It is within free speech for a person to tell his good, very caring parents that they can fuck off and that he never wants to talk to them again. That doesn't mean it's not an extremely terrible thing to do. Such a person is not just exercising his freedom of speech. He is exercising his free speech while acting like a scum bag.

Yes I wasn't arguing that acting within the law implies acting in an honourable manner, I was just asking in what way they were being close minded.

Forgive me if I am ignorant but this person had made some of her views known and these protesters were communicating to her that they found her views repulsive.

They were pushing to keep her from speaking. That is something I don't agree with. If Hitler (before he killed anybody) wanted to speak at a university near me, I would not speak in favor of stopping the speech from happening. I would probably attend the speech and listen to it.

I saw some of those protestors on television. The ones I saw were so hateful it was creepy. They acted like that and cried out for the stifling of speech. I could see what kind of people they are. I am pretty sure that their hatred for Ann Coulter is not born of love for humanity.

Ann Coulter is a douche.

Just say free speech nicely. Simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They were pushing to keep her from speaking. That is something I don't agree with. If Hitler (before he killed anybody) wanted to speak at a university near me, I would not speak in favor of stopping the speech from happening. I would probably attend the speech and listen to it.

I saw some of those protestors on television. The ones I saw were so hateful it was creepy. They acted like that and cried out for the stifling of speech. I could see what kind of people they are. I am pretty sure that their hatred for Ann Coulter is not born of love for humanity.

---

I can agree. I went to go see this, and a lot of the other students acted rather primitively. I knew this girl was a shallow-minded racist bitch, but nevertheless I wanted to hear her talk.

A lot of people are soft and unimaginative, and get offended easily if they don't hear something they agree with or don't like. I should have been rather entertained by her speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They were pushing to keep her from speaking. That is something I don't agree with. If Hitler (before he killed anybody) wanted to speak at a university near me, I would not speak in favor of stopping the speech from happening. I would probably attend the speech and listen to it.

I saw some of those protestors on television. The ones I saw were so hateful it was creepy. They acted like that and cried out for the stifling of speech. I could see what kind of people they are. I am pretty sure that their hatred for Ann Coulter is not born of love for humanity.

---

I really do agree with you, but its a hard line to identify. I doubt any of those protesters could come by the oportunity to stand up in front of hundreds or thousands of people to talk calmly about how much of a douche Ann Coulter is. Sometimes people have to excercise their free speech in the loudest way possible in order for it to be heard at all.

They also were not arguing for Ann Coulter to be permanently silenced, which is what limiting her free speech would entail. Being able to exercise your free speech on a stage in front of a crowd of people is not part of the right to free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Questions? Comments? Ideas?

---

I know it sounds bad, but I like to hear politicians say things like this. It exposes what they really are. War(as in the one on terror) is a barbaric and ineffective way of dealing with or accomplishing anything. My hope is that enough young people will politicians talking like this and lose faith in the current government(I was horrified at how easily obama was able to gain support by using the extremely ambiguous word change).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

They also were not arguing for Ann Coulter to be permanently silenced, which is what limiting her free speech would entail. Being able to exercise your free speech on a stage in front of a crowd of people is not part of the right to free speech.

---

It's trut that they were arguing for her to not be able to speak at the university, but not to never be able to speak anywhere at all. The university had a right to tell her she couldn't speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Not really any other than interesting conversations about it, but that's beside the point. Whether a positive outcome can come from something should not be the basis for deciding whether it should be legal. I have heard lots of Republicans say drugs should be illegal because no good comes from them. I think they are way off with that reasoning.

---

A person advocating genocide isn't really interested in having a nice chat about it, they're trying to garner supporters. It's not that nothing positive can come of it, it's that something very very negative can come of it. What are your views on sedition? I believe that is illegal in the US.

Quote:

---

How do you know they are not evil? People who are full of shit with their political power are evil. Anybody in that kind of position has to be intellectually honest to not be evil.

---

Well if you find telling half-truths and using typical political misdirection to stay in power evil, then yeah there's a bit of that. But with respect to human rights, international peace, accountability to citizens, it's all been pretty good. Just look at the world's view of Canada, "peaceful", "quiet", "friendly"... It might have something to do with our political structure. With four major parties currently in the House, the opposition is much more likely to capitalize on unpopular acts of individual politicians, especially in a minority situation. I believe it's also much easier to remove a politician from power here than in the US. The downside is that the Queen of England is our de jure head of state :?.

As for Ann Coulter, I wish she had spoken in Ottawa, but it was her decision to cancel the event. I think that most people here are pretty liberal and having her speak would let people see how full of shit she is.

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

The event was canceled by the organizers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

The event was canceled by the organizers.

---

Yes, not the university.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

A person advocating genocide isn't really interested in having a nice chat about it, they're trying to garner supporters. It's not that nothing positive can come of it, it's that something very very negative can come of it. What are your views on sedition? I believe that is illegal in the US.

---

There is a difference between expressing a belief and trying to incite an event to happen. Also, it was the government Ann was expressing a belief about. She was talking about the government doing something by choice. That is not illegal.

The sedition laws spook me out a good bit. I understand the illegality of saying, "Hey, let's go kill a bunch of old ladies! Come on!" That's organization of a criminal act. However, the laws cover a lot more than that. The idea of free speech being screwed with at all is unsettling, even when it may be necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Just look at the world's view of Canada, "peaceful", "quiet", "friendly"... It might have something to do with our political structure.

---

It's because you don't get caught up in international affairs. The country that borders you to the south does it for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is a difference between expressing a belief and trying to incite an event to happen. Also, it was the government Ann was expressing a belief about. She was talking about the government doing something by choice. That is not illegal.

---

I'm not saying anything she has already said would violate our hate speech law, she was simply reminded that we have one should she get way out of line.

Quote:

---

It's because you don't get caught up in international affairs. The country that borders you to the south does it for you.

---

Oh yeah, it's not like 140 of our soldiers have died helping our allies fight an enemy that has never attacked us. Get off your high horse :roll:...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm not saying anything she has already said would violate our hate speech law, she was simply reminded that we have one should she get way out of line.

---

Then what were you saying about her comments and genocide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Oh yeah, it's not like 140 of our soldiers have died helping our allies fight an enemy that has never attacked us. Get off your high horse :roll:...

---

I appreciate the 140, but... 140.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what were you saying about her comments and genocide?

---

I said that our laws prohibit the advocation of genocide, not that she has already done that (I barely know who this girl is). She was warned about this and critics say it violates free speech, but she hasn't actually violated anything.

Quote:

---

I appreciate the 140, but... 140.

---

Yes, and nobody crashed into our buildings. If you don't think we're active on the international scene, tell it to the families of these guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I said that our laws prohibit the advocation of genocide, not that she has already done that (I barely know who this girl is). She was warned about this and critics say it violates free speech, but she hasn't actually violated anything.

---

I took issue with the idea that she did because you said this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Advocating genocide or inciting hatred against an identifiable group is prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada, and provinces have similar laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yes, and nobody crashed into our buildings. If you don't think we're active on the international scene, tell it to the families of these guys.

---

I didn't mean Canada is 100% isolationist. I just meant that your participation in foreign affairs in miniscule compared to ours. You don't stir up enemies like we do. I am not saying that is good or bad here. I am just saying Canada is not much of an enemy making country.

As we have seen, Islamofascism is a threat to the entire world. I appreciate Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but it is done in the interest of Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I took issue with the idea that she did because you said this...

---

I was just citing the law and what the university official warned her about. Things she has said in the past (and things that could probably slip out of her in the future) could potentially be deemed "inciting hatred against an identifiable group", but none of that happened in Canada.

Quote:

---

I didn't mean Canada is 100% isolationist. I just meant that your participation in foreign affairs in miniscule compared to ours. You don't stir up enemies like we do. I am not saying that is good or bad here. I am just saying Canada is not much of an enemy making country.

As we have seen, Islamofascism is a threat to the entire world. I appreciate Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but it is done in the interest of Canada.

---

Canada's foreign policy does not include "making enemies". We're a country of some 34 million people, that's less than the population of California. We're rich and could easily isolate ourselves here on top of the world and say "fuck everyone else". Yet we have fought for freedom in both World Wars, Korea, the Cold War, Gulf War 1, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Before Afghanistan, we were renowned as a nation of peacekeepers, with soldiers stationed literally all over the world (even the commander of UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide was a Canadian general). We're founding members of NATO and soldiers from all over Europe and the US come to train here. We're also members of the G8, which we are hosting this year. Neither the US nor anybody else "takes care of our international affairs for us".

We are in Afghanistan primarily because America called upon its NATO allies to fulfill their pact after having been attacked on its soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

---

Yes. And then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. I could walk into a biker bar and tell the biggest meanest Hell's Angel he's a piece of shit... but then I'd run like hell... :panic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

---

Basically, that's what I think. Free speech is a corollary to the most fundamental right of controlling oneself: if one cannot freely express their opinion about something that affects them, then the primary means of changing one's situation has been eliminated, and thus the fundamental right has been violated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't mean Canada is 100% isolationist. I just meant that your participation in foreign affairs in miniscule compared to ours.

---

You could easily become isolationist because the United States borders you to the south. No military would dare to fuck with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

---

You seem to be an absolutist on a great many things. The world is not so black and white, and there are indeed exceptions to even the soundest of principles. Should you yell "bomb!" on a plane, or "fire!" in a school? What about walking down a street in a KKK outfit chanting "All fucking n***ers must die!!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You could easily become isolationist because the United States borders you to the south. No military would dare to fuck with you.

---

Yes, but that's not to case. And to say otherwise is disrespectful to those in service of our country around the globe. You could argue the same about any country in NATO, but NATO is so strong because everybody pitches in.

You can say that hate speech is illegal, or that garnering supporters for a violent cause is evil.

But then you can go bat-guano insane and say that communist rallies are attempts to undermine the country from within and arrest thousands of people as Bolshevik underminers. General Palmer and McCarther both used 'sedition' to justify their actions.

I realize in theory they are completely different things. But not in practice.

To Spart, I'd argue that yelling 'fire' or 'bomb' is illegal not because of the actual words but because of the immediate outcome. It's almost certainly going to initiate a chaotic scenario. Just as intentionally inciting a mob to riot is illegal, since it is an action not just an idea. The same goes for slander laws.

And I would never take away someone's right to racially slur someone in public, but when they threaten them with death or burn a star of david in my front lawn it becomes different. I awould allowed to use racial hate speech, (without the intention of initiating violence,) in Canada if I move there, wouldn't I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You seem to be an absolutist on a great many things. The world is not so black and white, and there are indeed exceptions to even the soundest of principles. Should you yell "bomb!" on a plane, or "fire!" in a school? What about walking down a street in a KKK outfit chanting "All fucking n***ers must die!!".

---

I am an absolutist when it comes to freedom, since you can't have partial freedom. You are either free or you are not. There really is no exception however.

You should indeed be able to yell bomb on the plane, however you are responsible for what you do. If you cause damage or anyone gets harmed during it, they should all be able to sue you. If however, nothing happened while you probably should be banned from ever flying that airline again, which is well within their right, you should not be arrested. Because we do not need laws to enforce this, when other methods work just as well.

As for the KKK example, while it is a horrible thing to say. If they are on a public street and they havn't actually caused anyone harm, they should be free to say whatever they want.

So you shouldn't be stopped if you're causing a panic? You should only face the consequences after property has been damaged or people have been injured or died?

What if you called the media and placed a fake bomb threat? I'm trying to use extreme examples here to point out that the anti-hate speech law isn't there to keep people politically correct or even to prevent you from freely expressing your racism, it's there to stop you from advocating genocide and inciting hatred against any identifiable group. There's a difference between saying "I hate muslims, they should all take their camel to work" and "I hate muslims. We should bomb their cities and convert them to Christianity. Come on who's with me??! Kill all muslims!" In the latter case, you're not expressing an opinion, you're trying to spread discrimination and find supporters to "kill all muslims". Should we wait until you or your followers beat up a muslim or bomb a mosque to actually do something?

When did I say you shouldn't be stopped? I said you shouldn't be arrested and thrown in jail. Big difference there. It didn't take a law to stop Ann Coulter, it was the people protesting. Which just shows, that you can effectively use free speech to stop hate speech, without threating to arrest and jail anyone.

A person has every right to stand at the corner and scream out that we should bomb all muslims. It is my hope, that a more rational person who stand besides him, and scream out how stupid the idea is.

People aren't that rational, they fight hatred with hatred. If that KKK guy walks down the street saying that stuff, some black guy is going to walk up to him and knock him out. Then he is the one facing assault charges, where is the justice in that. This is how riots and feuds start, unrest and reprisals. The law is preferable to vigilante justice.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

I am for free speech, it's an essential freedom we must protect, and so one would have to be very careful with arresting people for hate speech, as it is most difficult to draw the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Should someone who is advocating restrictions on free speech be free to do so?

---

If you support free speech then you have to say yes to that question. But it's incredibly annoying.

Free speech vs hate speech?

Hmm...umm...ahhh...

My thoughts on this is that actions speak louder than words. Hate speech is only possible through free speech. The only way to suppress hate speech is through the suppression of free speech.

People that don't mind getting rid of free speech are either mimes or highly selfish.

Quote:

---

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".

http://zalandria.files.wordpress.com...04/fascism.jpg

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..?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

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

---

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

Has anyone been charged with a hate crime yet?

Also, I wonder if it can be applied to people against illegal immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Has anyone been charged with a hate crime yet?

Also, I wonder if it can be applied to people against illegal immigration.

---

Yes, they have.

Also, it depends on the country. Many countries, (and much probably the USA too) have in their legal protocols that illegal immigrants have little or no rights at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, they have.

Also, it depends on the country. Many countries, (and much probably the USA too) have in their legal protocols that illegal immigrants have little or no rights at all.

---

Illegal immigrants not having rights doesn't matter. They don't have to press charges against someone for the court system to actively pursue putting someone on trial for a hate crime.

According to the Canadian definition of a hate crime, your actions must be directed towards an "identifiable group". "Illegal immigrants" in general don't constitute an identifiable group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

According to the Canadian definition of a hate crime, your actions must be directed towards an "identifiable group". "Illegal immigrants" in general don't constitute an identifiable group.

---

Yes they do. But Canada is very open about immigration and different cultures, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes they do. But Canada is very open about immigration and different cultures, you know.

---

"Illegal immigrant" is a legal status. An identifiable group is a group of people of a certain colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or health status.

For example, there are a lot of latino (an identifiable group) illegal immigrants in the USA, as well as many legal ones. Illegal immigrants could constitute a host of different identifiable groups, so as long as any groups aren't specifically singled out, it's not a hate crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

"Illegal immigrant" is a legal status. An identifiable group is a group of people of a certain colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or health status.

For example, there are a lot of latino (an identifiable group) illegal immigrants in the USA, as well as many legal ones. Illegal immigrants could constitute a host of different identifiable groups, so as long as any groups aren't specifically singled out, it's not a hate crime.

---

Depends. It is about perception. When people think illegal immigration, they think Mexican most of the time. Also another thought is what if someone hates all races equally? Does that constitute a hate crime? That is really a good question because on a technical basis, if it does constitute a hate crime, then illegal immigration would apply. If hating all races equally doesn't constitute a hate crime, then there is your get out of jail free card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Depends. It is about perception. When people think illegal immigration, they think Mexican most of the time. Also another thought is what if someone hates all races equally? Does that constitute a hate crime? That is really a good question because on a technical basis, if it does constitute a hate crime, then illegal immigration would apply. If hating all races equally doesn't constitute a hate crime, then there is your get out of jail free card.

---

You would have to specify "Mexican" then for it to be a hate crime. If your actions are directed towards everyone equally, then it becomes terrorism or disturbing the peace.

The idea of hate crimes seems really screwed up. If somebody bashes somebody else's head in without justification or mitigation, then that person is scum and should be dealt with like scum, period. If it turns out that he did it because he hated the person's race, gender, or religion, should that really make any difference legally? He did what he did for an evil reason. Charging for hate beyond that point is charging for what amounts to a thought crime.

If I got attacked by some freak, I would be more offended if I found out that he did it just because he felt like attacking somebody than I would be if I found out he did it because I'm white. As stupid as that reason is, at least he had something to go on in thinking he was right for doing it. A person who can attack an innocent person without hating him is more cold blooded than a person who has to hate his victim.

Except that a person who specifically targets certain groups is more likely to gain followers and cause copycat or reprisal attacks. Hate crimes are crimes against society rather than individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that a person who specifically targets certain groups is more likely to gain followers and cause copycat or reprisal attacks. Hate crimes are crimes against society rather than individuals.

---

What does the law change about that? Does it somehow make them less hateful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What does the law change about that? Does it somehow make them less hateful?

---

I know that in Canadian law, if it can be proven that a crime was motivated by hate towards a group, it gives the judge justification for imposing a harsher penalty (up to the maximum allowable). It's not that simple though, there's a bunch of other factors to be taken into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I know that in Canadian law, if it can be proven that a crime was motivated by hate towards a group, it gives the judge justification for imposing a harsher penalty (up to the maximum allowable). It's not that simple though, there's a bunch of other factors to be taken into account.

---

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

---

I suppose it doesn't directly, it just stops people from acting on their hate. In any case that would be the first step to making people less hateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I suppose it doesn't directly, it just stops people from acting on their hate. In any case that would be the first step to making people less hateful.

---

The punishments they get for acting out do the trick equally on their own. Throwing in something about a hate factor does nothing.

EDIT: I was just messing around on YouTube, and I came across an Ann Coulter video from 2007. She is a slippery, dodgy, dishonest bitch in the video. It is ridiculous. I despise Chris Matthews, but he doesn't come close to standing out as the bigggest jackass in the clip. Ann Coulter is such a psychopath. I'm sure she majorly increased her book sales because of the segment, though.



:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The punishments they get for acting out do the trick equally on their own. Throwing in something about a hate factor does nothing.

---

It probably doesn't make a lot of difference for stuff like assault charges, but it allows people to be charged without having physically harmed others (the whole genocide/inciting hatred part).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

"Illegal immigrant" is a legal status. An identifiable group is a group of people of a certain colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or health status.

For example, there are a lot of latino (an identifiable group) illegal immigrants in the USA, as well as many legal ones. Illegal immigrants could constitute a host of different identifiable groups, so as long as any groups aren't specifically singled out, it's not a hate crime.

---

Nah. "Identifiable group" only means that the hate isn't directed randomly at different groups. Any human group there exists is an identifiable group. 'Housewives who cannot cook properly' is an identifiable group, and can have hate crimes directed at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. "Identifiable group" only means that the hate isn't directed randomly at different groups. Any human group there exists is an identifiable group. 'Housewives who cannot cook properly' is an identifiable group, and can have hate crimes directed at it.

---

I agree. Just because there's different races in a group, doesn't mean it's not a group. I mean, within Mexicans, there's tonnes of different identifiable groups. Housewives who cannot cook properly, Rich people, Drug dealers, Homeless people.... etc.

I knew there was something very wrong with what Spartiate said, but I couldn't explain it so thanks Kromoh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

---

Why does murder carry a harsher penalty than jaywalking? Targeting people because of their group affiliation and either attacking them or inciting attacks is a more reprehensible crime than simple assault, and more corrosive to society, hence more harshly punished. Once upon a time in this country (and to this day, in more than a few places), hate crimes were widely viewed as acceptable or even laudable, and carried out with the support of the justice system. Establishing in law that they are unacceptable does indeed get the message across to a few more people that "hate bad," eroding the network of tacit approval behind those who would commit hate crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Why does murder carry a harsher penalty than jaywalking? Targeting people because of their group affiliation and either attacking them or inciting attacks is a more reprehensible crime than simple assault, and more corrosive to society, hence more harshly punished. Once upon a time in this country (and to this day, in more than a few places), hate crimes were widely viewed as acceptable or even laudable, and carried out with the support of the justice system. Establishing in law that they are unacceptable does indeed get the message across to a few more people that "hate bad," eroding the network of tacit approval behind those who would commit hate crimes.

---

Murder carries a harsher penalty because there is more of a need to deter it. You can't deter hate. It is not an action. It is an feeling. You can't successfully legislate and deter feelings. It only makes sense to legislate actions. Sending a message of "Hate... bad" does not make anybody less hateful.

Also...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The idea of hate crimes seems really screwed up. If somebody bashes somebody else's head in without justification or mitigation, then that person is scum and should be dealt with like scum, period. If it turns out that he did it because he hated the person's race, gender, or religion, should that really make any difference legally? He did what he did for an evil reason. Charging for hate beyond that point is charging for what amounts to a thought crime.

If I got attacked by some freak, I would be more offended if I found out that he did it just because he felt like attacking somebody than I would be if I found out he did it because I'm white. As stupid as that reason is, at least he had something to go on in thinking he was right for doing it. A person who can attack an innocent person without hating him is more cold blooded than a person who has to hate his victim.

---

Let's say you got shot and are lying on your death bed about to die in five minutes. Would you rather it be the case that you are about to die because you are a Democrat or because some asshole just felt like shooting somebody for the fun of it? Which involves a lower regard for human life?

I'm pretty sure nobody would care why they were shot, the fact that they were dying would surely be enough, regardless of the reason.

Hate crimes don't occur in a vacuum where the offender's views and actions are fixed from birth. Law can influence attitudes--it can't forcefully alter them to a desired state, but attaching the stigma of criminality to a behavior certainly changes how people perceive it. Maybe you can't deter hate in someone who currently has their mind set on dragging a <epithet> behind their truck, but you might have a shot at the six or twelve year old who sees that guy on the news, or a sixty-five year old who recognizes the stigma and opts not to make the statements that reinforce the worldview behind the sense of self-righteousness that lead the hater to strap someone to his truck.

Laws against hate crime don't just deter hate crime, they stigmatize and thereby reduce the societal attitudes that promote hate crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

I'm pretty sure nobody would care why they were shot, the fact that they were dying would surely be enough, regardless of the reason.

---

Knowledge of your own death due to an attack does not make your anger over the attack go away. It increases it. You would be thinking really hard about why you are about to die if you were in that situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hate crimes don't occur in a vacuum where the offender's views and actions are fixed from birth. Law can influence attitudes--it can't forcefully alter them to a desired state, but attaching the stigma of criminality to a behavior certainly changes how people perceive it. Maybe you can't deter hate in someone who currently has their mind set on dragging a <epithet> behind their truck, but you might have a shot at the six or twelve year old who sees that guy on the news, or a sixty-five year old who recognizes the stigma and opts not to make the statements that reinforce the worldview behind the sense of self-righteousness that lead the hater to strap someone to his truck.

Laws against hate crime don't just deter hate crime, they stigmatize and thereby reduce the societal attitudes that promote hate crime.

---

Teaching that hate is bad does the same thing. Making hate illegal doesn't add a thing. It just makes an emotion illegal, which is absurd.

What is your answer to my question about being shot? Which type of person has less regard for human life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Teaching that hate is bad does the same thing. Making hate illegal doesn't add a thing. It just makes an emotion illegal, which is absurd.

---

You're missing the point UM. Hate isn't illegal. The emotion isn't illegal. They can't read your thoughts. It is illegal if you post a video on youtube saying "all <epithet> should die" and then go out and shoot a <epithet>.

Watch it, tommo. I know you were making a point, but you still don't get to use that word, and as you see, the point can be made without it.

As a rule of thumb, most people of any complexion sound like assholes using that word in public, regardless of context.

I know South Park is probably not the favorite among DV members, but I suggest watching the episode "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime". The episode's explanation could shed some light to some people. Just a thought....

I hate crackers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Watch it, tommo. I know you were making a point, but you still don't get to use that word, and as you see, the point can be made without it.

As a rule of thumb, most people of any complexion sound like assholes using that word in public, regardless of context.

---

Ahhhh you PC asshole.
Seriously, and I've seen that epithet thing in someone else's post too in the past few days.

I don't "get" to use that word?
What does that even mean?
I can use any word I want. Given no one has fried the language center of my brain.

People saying words don't sound like assholes, people who take away their right to use those words are assholes.

Should we erase the word nigger from the dictionary? No, because it's important that people know their history. Telling people not to say or write it is equivalent to saying none of this widespread racist shit ever happened.

It's kind of hilarious coz we're in a free speech vs hate speech thread and you're oppressing my free speech OF hate speech.

(Well, hate word, not hate speech, I wasn't hating, but it's less pithy if I explain all that.)
It's just hilarious. I mean, we're discussing where the line is between hate speech and free speech and you've just drawn the line, and tainted the discussion.

Also, 'nigger' is not offensive if you're using it as an example. It depends entirely in which context you use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

You're missing the point UM. Hate isn't illegal. The emotion isn't illegal. They can't read your thoughts. It is illegal if you post a video on youtube saying "all nigger should die" and then go out and shoot a nigger.

---

Yes, hate laws ban hate, though not across the board. Let's say Bob shoots Fernando because Bob likes shooting people. He is a murderer and is dealt with as a murderer. Now let's say Bob shoots Fred in exactly the same way under the same surrounding conditions because likes shooting people AND because he hates Mexicans. You say the latter should be treated as a more serious crime. Right? Well, what is the difference between the two situations? There is only one difference-- hate is involved in the decision. If you think that variable alone should carry a harsher label and penalty, then you support treating hate as a crime when it is accompanied by certain other circumstances. That would make the hate aspect of the situation illegal. It involves the banning of an emotion in certain situations.

I still want somebody to clear up my earlier issue. If person 1 murders because he likes murdering and person 2 murders because he hates homosexuals and thinks they're evil, which person has less regard for human life?

Whatever, tommo. It's a generally offensive term that adds nothing to your point. I say you don't "get to" use it because it seemed very much like you were fishing for an opportunity to "get away with" using the word. It's not necessarily racist behavior, just a racially insensitive variety of adolescent boundary-pushing for boundary-pushing's sake.

You can use that word in private any way you like, whether analytically, congenially, or in outright racism, but this is a public forum, and using it here you're about 99.97% certain to come off as either

1) a racist
2) someone trying to establish license or cred to use the word

While #2 is arguably a mere douchebag, I would call both varieties of asshole.

He would only come off that way because of the way that strong language is feared in our culture. If he isn't calling someone in particular a nigger, how is it offensive? How can a word by itself be offensive? It may not be pleasant, but it isn't offensive. Who is it offending?

I think it was fairly obvious that he was using the word to make a point that was in no way offensive, but rather a demonstration of what hate speech was.

Sorry to be such a dick about it, but I hate political correctness, or rather people who try to force their own political correctness onto others. Forced morality is misguided and annoying. Political correctness in no way diminishes hate, it merely changes the surface leaving the underlying form the same.

You talk of him being offensive for the mere use of a word, yet you call him an asshole. Ironic. Context is everything. I can say I love asshole, and that is in no way offensive, though possibly disturbing. You calling someone an asshole is offensive. Me saying nigger is a word that was used to signify slaves in the 1700s is not offensive, it is the truth.

There is a big difference between what is offensive and what is unpleasant. Nothing is generally offensive. Only behavior can be offensive. The act of calling someone a name or demeaning them in any manner is offensive. A word in and of itself is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still want somebody to clear up my earlier issue. If person 1 murders because he likes murdering and person 2 murders because he hates homosexuals and thinks they're evil, which person has less regard for human life?

---

Your point is obvious, and I agree with it. In the specific scenario you created, person 1 is a probably a sicker human being and has a lower regard for life in general. But these things are not as black and white as that.

In all reality, person 2 would get an increased sentence in a maximum security prision. Person 1 would very likely be able to pull an insanity plea as a sociopath out of his ass, and get sent to the loony bin. Murdering for the sake of murder, or murdering for the sake of hatred. Jesus, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Except its murderers.

Equality for murderers! I'll start making the pickets

Thanks for clearing that up for me stonedape, appreciate it. I agree with you 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, hate laws ban hate, though not across the board. Let's say Bob shoots Fernando because Bob likes shooting people. He is a murderer and is dealt with as a murderer. Now let's say Bob shoots Fred in exactly the same way under the same surrounding conditions....

---

Ahaha. Nice interpretation UM. I think it's a little convoluted though.
It's still not banning hate or making it illegal. You're twisting it to make it look like it is. But if you looked at your explanation with a clear head you would realise it makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You say the latter should be treated as a more serious crime. Right?

---

No. In fact I explicitly said that I think hate crime laws are stupid. Because it requires going inside a persons head to see what they were thinking while they killed them. Which is impossible to do with any certainty.
However if we could just say hypothetically person 1 just killed and person 2 killed for hateful reasons.... I don't know.

I think it's dumb to do it just for minorities, because you can kill other people out of hate too. Also it just makes it seem like minorities should be valued more or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Your point is obvious, and I agree with it. In the specific scenario you created, person 1 is a probably a sicker human being and has a lower regard for life in general. But these things are not as black and white as that.

---

I agree with that. It's not black and white.
Because hating a certain type of person just because they're a certain type of person requires just as much "sickness" as killing someone for no reason other than to kill.
Also people might hate a certain group just because they grew up in a racist/sexist household, so can you lay blame on them?
The person who killed just to kill might have witnessed something horrible in his childhood.

Could go on forever and it just gets more and more convoluted.
It's also impossible to factor all of this in to a court case - especially the parts you have to guess - and decide on a sentence. Sentences are always just whatever the judge decides at the time anyway (with a set number of years limit and minimum sometimes) so it's not like it's incredibly accurate anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Equality for murderers! I'll start making the pickets

---

LMAO!
Now you can see why this law passed so easily. Who would have the courage to actually do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Because it requires going inside a persons head to see what they were thinking while they killed them. Which is impossible to do with any certainty.

---

Actually, criminal prosecutors have to do that all the time when they are trying to prove motive or aggravating circumstances.

Quote:

---

I think it's dumb to do it just for minorities, because you can kill other people out of hate too. Also it just makes it seem like minorities should be valued more or something.

---

Not sure about Australia or the US, but in Canada the law applies to all. If somebody goes promoting the genocide of white people, he'll be in as much shit as if he was attacking minorities.

Thank Carlin.

I can see where you're coming from, tommo and stonedape, and maybe I was making too much of a blanket statement, insofar as your usage of the term in the discussion about using it was relevant and non-offensive. tommo's original usage, however, remains gratuitous, detracting from his point for the reasons I've already stated, and while I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was simply poor construction, his statement as written is racist in and of itself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

You're missing the point UM. Hate isn't illegal. The emotion isn't illegal. They can't read your thoughts. It is illegal if you post a video on youtube saying "all nigger should die" and then go out and shoot a nigger.

---

His second use is the author, tommo, not the hypothetical youtuber, using a racial epithet to refer to the hypothetical victim. Sure, he probably, kinda meant, like, it would be the youtuber thinking it, but he also probably, kinda saw an opportunity to use the word for the sake of using it, because he doesn't get to in ordinary life, which is so way more unjust than the history of violence and oppression packed in that word.

Also, if you object to a mod decision, take it up in Talk To Staff--don't try to reverse it yourself :facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Ahaha. Nice interpretation UM. I think it's a little convoluted though.
It's still not banning hate or making it illegal. You're twisting it to make it look like it is. But if you looked at your explanation with a clear head you would realise it makes no sense.

---

Use your clear head to explain what you are talking about. Tell me where the flaw is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

No. In fact I explicitly said that I think hate crime laws are stupid. Because it requires going inside a persons head to see what they were thinking while they killed them. Which is impossible to do with any certainty.
However if we could just say hypothetically person 1 just killed and person 2 killed for hateful reasons.... I don't know.

I think it's dumb to do it just for minorities, because you can kill other people out of hate too. Also it just makes it seem like minorities should be valued more or something.

---

Right, the only difference in the level of offense is the amount of hate that is inside their heads. I'm glad you agree with me on the absurdity of it. You didn't seem to a few posts back.

Sorry, I just feel the need to speak up when someone is trying to suppress speech in a thread about freedom of speech. Particularly if it is for PC reasons, because I feel that political correctness is a form of superficiality. It is about making yourself look good and proper and has nothing to do with morality or justice.

If you really thought that tommo was a racist and consider him a member of this community, would it not be more beneficial to talk with him about this than to insult him? I understand, your a cop and your only "doing your job", but do you really think that tommo had racist intent, or was this just an opportunity for you to push political correctness?

People should act and speak as they will. If they do something offensive it shows who they are and how they feel. You yourself showed that you cared not about what was morally right or just or offensive but what was politically correct when you insulted him. If you believe that members of this community should not be offensive toward each other than you should start by not offending others yourself.

Sorry for ranting so much and directing all this negative energy towards you, but I get very pissed off about hypocritical moralizing. I'm not trying to reverse your decision, it's just that you dropped the PC card, talked about how he tommo was offensive, then insulted him. I can't resist this kind of inconsistency, my mind looks for it and attacks it. I see this sort of inconsistency as the Achilles heel of modern politics and think that it needs to be directly addressed and because it isn't and I'm in no position to address it myself, I rant on the internet.

To clear one thing up, I did not call tommo an asshole. I characterized his actions and how they were likely to be perceived. If I had called him an asshole, that would be a punishable offense under forum rules. I did, however, take an unnecessarily patronizing tone and take things in that direction, which is why tommo didn't get an infraction for outright calling me an asshole in his response. Sorry for the forum policy tangent--the rest of this discussion does seem relevant to the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

Sorry, I just feel the need to speak up when someone is trying to suppress speech in a thread about freedom of speech. Particularly if it is for PC reasons, because I feel that political correctness is a form of superficiality. It is about making yourself look good and proper and has nothing to do with morality or justice.

If you really thought that tommo was a racist and consider him a member of this community, would it not be more beneficial to talk with him about this than to insult him? I understand, your a cop and your only "doing your job", but do you really think that tommo had racist intent, or was this just an opportunity for you to push political correctness?

People should act and speak as they will. If they do something offensive it shows who they are and how they feel. You yourself showed that you cared not about what was morally right or just or offensive but what was politically correct when you insulted him. If you believe that members of this community should not be offensive toward each other than you should start by not offending others yourself.

Sorry for ranting so much and directing all this negative energy towards you, but I get very pissed off about hypocritical moralizing. I'm not trying to reverse your decision, it's just that you dropped the PC card, talked about how he tommo was offensive, then insulted him. I can't resist this kind of inconsistency, my mind looks for it and attacks it. I see this sort of inconsistency as the Achilles heel of modern politics and think that it needs to be directly addressed and because it isn't and I'm in no position to address it myself, I rant on the internet.

---

And I feel the need to speak up when someone is using a "hate speech" discussion as an excuse to get a tingle by using a taboo racial epithet, one that is taboo for good reason. Let's imagine tommo saying his post out loud in some other public settings: a classroom; a subway platform; a busy restaurant; the evening news. What kind of response do you think he would get? If you were standing next to him, would you back him up as adamantly as you did here? Would he even think about saying it in the first place? I doubt either you or tommo would have made that statement without 1) the anonymity and distance of the internet or 2) a 100% white audience.

The "How come I can't say it? Why can't I be a minority, too?" mindset indicates an ignorance not far short of racism: ignorance regarding the real scale of racism in this country--not just blatant, hate-crime racism, but the amount of shit people have to let slide off their backs on a daily basis; and ignorance of the extent of white privilege. You can fall back on idealism, "I should be able to say anything, anywhere!" but in practical terms, racial epithets have such a strong chance of engendering defensiveness, fear, hostility, or the approval of people you probably don't want on your side, that they're almost always going to undermine anything you're trying to say.

You can throw around allegations of "political correctness" all you want, but every community has standards.

I can think of a half a dozen curse words worse than that. One isn't any more taboo than the others, just because people generally refer to one race. I am pretty sure if you call a white guy a mother ******, you are going to get the same reaction as using the other word with a black man.

That said, there is an appropriate time and place for every word.

Exactly, and I used it appropriately.

And Taosaur, I have said nigger in public before, to black friends in fact. But I never use it in a derogatory way. As stonedape has basically said, covering up actual racism by trying to force political correctness, is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I am pretty sure if you call a white guy a mother ******, you are going to get the same reaction as using the other word with a black man.

---

I would tend to disagree. I think what it is here is that "ni***r" is perhaps a much less offensive word in Australia than in North America. For example, here in Quebec you hear news reporters and sportscasters saying "fuck" all the time on French language stations, it's just not that offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To clear one thing up, I did not call tommo an asshole. I characterized his actions and how they were likely to be perceived. If I had called him an asshole, that would be a punishable offense under forum rules. I did, however, take an unnecessarily patronizing tone and take things in that direction, which is why tommo didn't get an infraction for outright calling me an asshole in his response. Sorry for the forum policy tangent--the rest of this discussion does seem relevant to the thread.

---

Even as a tangent it's still very relevant to the topic of free speech and hate speech. This is just another example of why I think that all speech should be allowed and unpublishable(other than in certain nebulous contexts like yelling "BOMB!" on an airplane or something; in this case you should be punished for causing havoc, not for use of words).

Your right, you didn't call him that, I missed the words "likely to come off as" in your second post. My apologies for misrepresenting you. But if he was offending you by his choice of words then you could have called him an asshole, or at least this is what I would have done(only with harsher words). What is wrong with calling someone an asshole when they are acting like one? You probably shouldn't have, buts that's just because you're a mod and that would look bad for the site and make it hard for people to take you seriously as a mod.

And is calling someone an asshole seriously a punishable offense? Jesus H. fucking Chirst. This is the internet, not 3rd grade. I can understand mods not using words like that(mods really shouldn't be offending people), but if someone is being an asshole you should be able to call them an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

And I feel the need to speak up when someone is using a "hate speech" discussion as an excuse to get a tingle by using a taboo racial epithet, one that is taboo for good reason. Let's imagine tommo saying his post out loud in some other public settings: a classroom; a subway platform; a busy restaurant; the evening news. What kind of response do you think he would get? If you were standing next to him, would you back him up as adamantly as you did here? Would he even think about saying it in the first place? I doubt either you or tommo would have made that statement without 1) the anonymity and distance of the internet or 2) a 100% white audience.

---

This is because it is taboo, not because of the word itself. I agree that he could have worded it better. And I'll admit it, I am only so adamant in my backing because I secretly want to be a lawyer for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence that he was doing this to get a tingle? While his wording may have been poor, it seems much more likely that he was using the word(a form of hate speech) because he is in a discussion about hate speech.

Any discussion of hate speech is going to be edgy in some respect unless it is weak and watered down by political correctness and other forms of fear. If I found myself in a discussion of hate speech in a classroom I would have no problem saying the word nigger, though I wouldn't have used as he did the second time, that does sound like he is using the word to refer to someone, which is offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You can throw around allegations of "political correctness" all you want, but every community has standards.

---

Why should standards ever be a complete prohibition of things or actions? This has been tried in communities since the beginning of time and has always been a total failure. We prohibit drugs yet people do them anyway. We prohibit murder yet people do it anyway. This is not to say that we shouldn't have rules or regulations of any kind, but rather to say that our methods of morality are old fashioned and out dated. They are still based in Thou Shalt mentality, which doesn't work. Time for a software upgrade in the Universal Computer.

Things are never harmful in and of themselves. A gun sitting 5 feet away, or even one in someones hand, is not in and of itself harmful. It is the way we use things that creates harm.

I think that it is an obvious and unspoken standard that a man should not offend another man. Why do we need to put stipulations and limitations on the strings of letters we can put together? Had you told tommo "watch it, you sound like a racist," I might have let it go. It is this idea that you are in some position of authority to tell someone what words they can and cannot use that I am rambling on about. This is a free country God Damn it. This is supposed to be a country of free men, of free thinkers. This country* was founded on a reaction, a revolution against this kind of Thou Shalt Not moralizing. People came here to escape this kind of bullshit and it seems to have followed them.

As a mod you certainly need to control the context, that is your job, to keep things from getting out of hand. But by eliminating content (or threatening to) you are not controlling the context, you are warping it. In order to control the context you must remain rational and not be moved by politics(which is all second circuit emotional energy). Your tone was offensive in my opinion. You seemed to be in this kind of Holier than Thou mindset that politically correct folk often have.

Sorry for this being so absurdly long, I am very passionate about free speech, it is the cornerstone of liberty.

*I should note that when I say country, I am not referring to the state. I am referring to the groups of communities that were started here in the 1500s by European settlers.

The only reason I said it a second time was because I wasn't really thinking about it. But in any case I don't think it matters. For reasons stated above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

And is calling someone an asshole seriously a punishable offense? Jesus H. fucking Chirst. This is the internet, not 3rd grade. I can understand mods not using words like that(mods really shouldn't be offending people), but if someone is being an asshole you should be able to call them an asshole.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

I think that it is an obvious and unspoken standard that a man should not offend another man. Why do we need to put stipulations and limitations on the strings of letters we can put together? Had you told tommo "watch it, you sound like a racist," I might have let it go. It is this idea that you are in some position of authority to tell someone what words they can and cannot use that I am rambling on about. This is a free country God Damn it. This is supposed to be a country of free men, of free thinkers. This country* was founded on a reaction, a revolution against this kind of Thou Shalt Not moralizing. People came here to escape this kind of bullshit and it seems to have followed them.

As a mod you certainly need to control the context, that is your job, to keep things from getting out of hand. But by eliminating content (or threatening to) you are not controlling the context, you are warping it. In order to control the context you must remain rational and not be moved by politics(which is all second circuit emotional energy). Your tone was offensive in my opinion. You seemed to be in this kind of Holier than Thou mindset that politically correct folk often have.

Sorry for this being so absurdly long, I am very passionate about free speech, it is the cornerstone of liberty.

*I should note that when I say country, I am not referring to the state. I am referring to the groups of communities that were started here in the 1500s by European settlers.

---

Setting aside that highly selective reading of colonial history (a preponderance of those settlers came here to better enact their own brands of Thou Shalt Not moralizing), your argument would be quite lovely if anyone were taking up the position you argue against. I've already said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

maybe I was making too much of a blanket statement, insofar as your usage of the term in the discussion about using it was relevant and non-offensive.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I did, however, take an unnecessarily patronizing tone and take things in that direction

---

There are no "7 Words You Can't Say on DV," but there are standards of inappropriate language, and rules against insulting members, whether you call them fuckwad or captain poopy-face. There's no rule against taking an insulting tone when responding to a member, but it's still dickish and counterproductive, and I'm sorry for the tone of my initial responses to tommo.

Now regarding the word in question, and forum rules aside, you really have to examine your motivation for using it in any circumstances. We're talking about a word with very strong chances of one or more of the following effects:

1) causing someone distress
2) obscuring any message you might have
3) changing people's perception of you for the worse

particularly if you fumble it and end up saying something you didn't mean to say, as we're charitably assuming tommo did in his second usage. You can argue for your inalienable right to eat a shit sandwich, but you'll have a hard time convincing me it's ever a good idea, and no one's going to thank you for whipping it out in public.

My own observation of self-identified white people who are not overtly racist, but choose to put this particular turd in their mouth, is that they fail to grasp the real, ongoing impact of racism and, conversely, of white privilege, resulting in shallow, borderline racist views such as resentment against minorities for getting "special treatment" and a fetishistic fascination with minority culture--hence the failure to recognize that "edgy" use of racial epithets is an inappropriate arena in which to measure your e-peen (or ego-peen, in RL situations).

So no, I didn't feel moral outrage over tommo's post: more of a facepalming embarrassment on his behalf, and a wish to make it clear, for his edification and as a general illustration of the rules, that he had crossed the line.

Trying to stop people from using a word isn't going to make racism go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucidness

If your going to do hate speech, do it respectively.

---

:roll::roll:

If hate speech applies to criticizing Israel
and the suffering Israel causes to
Palestinians ,I don"t buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

If hate speech applies to criticizing Israel
and the suffering Israel causes to
Palestinians ,I don"t buy it.

---

Interestingly, hate speech would apply to the criticizing of Israel. Good example of how perspective interacts with hate speech. It actually may be partially why hate speech was devised(?).

Anyhow, hate speech looks like a way of weaseling in and controlling free speech. Slowly, but surely? One step at a time? Maybe.