PDA

View Full Version : Free Speech


mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2017, 12:37 PM
Simple question should there be a limit to free speech?

I consider myself to be for free speech, but I also think hate speech and should be outlaw.

Sailor Mars
August 22nd, 2017, 01:19 PM
I'm actually against any legal consequences to hate speech... of course if someone takes it upon themselves to punch a nazi in the face, that's something else to be discussed :P

All men and women are created equally and with equal rights. Under the american constitution, we have the right to freedom of speech (and freedom of press). While that means we can say whatever we want to, it doesn't mean we should say whatever we want to. While yes, I believe you have the right to say racist shit doesn't mean you should say it in the first place or get triggered when someone runs up on you for it. There's a difference of being free and being stupid.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 22nd, 2017, 01:34 PM
Free speech is defined as the right to have and express any opinions without fear of government censorship or retribution. "Hate Speech" as frequently defined by the Left, consists of expressed opinions that offends, intimidates, or disparages certain peoples. To say that you want to ban hate speech, then frankly, you don't support actual free speech. The foundation of free speech is the right to express any opinion without government censorship. To say that you want to ban hate speech, means that you don't actually support the right to express any opinions, but only government sanctioned ones. How then is that free speech? It isn't, instead it is a slippery slope to complete government controlled speech.

Here is a statement from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in regards to a recent Supreme Court case on hate speech, that I feel sums up my opinions:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society


I'm actually against any legal consequences to hate speech... of course if someone takes it upon themselves to punch a nazi in the face, that's something else to be discussed :P
Yea, that isn't much of a free speech issue, since the government isn't actually hitting the guy in the face. It would be an interesting discussion as to how much we as private citizens could use our own right to free speech to suppress those of other private citizens. But yeah, that is a discussion for another day.

Babs
August 22nd, 2017, 01:47 PM
No, the law shouldn't be brought into it, plain and simple. Everyone can say whatever the fuck they want, and likewise should be prepared to face criticism or other consequences for the things they say.

Words may upset you, but they can't hurt you. Point blank, neither words nor thought can be criminalized.

Dalcourt
August 22nd, 2017, 03:57 PM
Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.

Winston Churchill said that once.

From my experience it is mainly a certain group of people who is so keen on the free speech thing. And those are also the people who are most taken aback when others use their right for free speech against them and talk about uncomfortable things.

So basically in a Democracy like ours we basically claim our right for free speech when we want to do hate speech.

The whole free speech thing is clearly overdone and basically used for childish arguments since free speech is part of every democracy.

Should there be a law against hate speech? It's tricky...what if your fiery outburst of free speech inspires others to do a crime - kill someone? It's not easy...but it is equally hard to define what hate speech would comprise.
So basically outlawing hate speech is not really an option in my opinion.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 22nd, 2017, 08:42 PM
From my experience it is mainly a certain group of people who is so keen on the free speech thing. And those are also the people who are most taken aback when others use their right for free speech against them and talk about uncomfortable things.
Mind telling who this group is so we can discuss their actions and beliefs in a better manner? I assume you are talking about SJWs? I can't be sure.

Porpoise101
August 22nd, 2017, 08:56 PM
In the US, implementing hate speech laws would most realistically call for a reinterpretation of the Constitution on the First Amendment. The problem with reinterpretations beyond the textualist, by-the-book approach (or even contemporary judicial interpretation) is that they are almost always unclear. Since they are unclear, it leaves wiggle room for authoritarian types to abuse these spaces if we are not careful. There is a real and tangible slippery slope to a reinterpretation of the First Amendment because of this. By solving one problem, public disorder, you replace it with a whole host of new issues.

If this "what if" reasoning doesn't convince you, consider this: Trump's (or any future President's) administration would be the ones enforcing hate speech laws.

Dalcourt
August 22nd, 2017, 09:41 PM
Mind telling who this group is so we can discuss their actions and beliefs in a better manner? I assume you are talking about SJWs? I can't be sure.

It is the group of people as I said, not a group with certain beliefs. It is basically the group of people who use what some would consider hate speech...like extremists "on many sides".

And while everyone of them likes throwing around their hate under the pretence of free speech, they are clearly shocked when receiving the same hate.

So free speech bluntly would be you having to defend my right to call you an idiot and vice versa and that is what a lot of people clearly not understand. And that's where their cries for limits come in...

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2017, 11:43 PM
Should there be a law against hate speech? It's tricky...what if your fiery outburst of free speech inspires others to do a crime - kill someone? It's not easy...but it is equally hard to define what hate speech would comprise.
So basically outlawing hate speech is not really an option in my opinion.

There is already a law for that, called inciting violence.

In the US, implementing hate speech laws would most realistically call for a reinterpretation of the Constitution on the First Amendment. The problem with reinterpretations beyond the textualist, by-the-book approach (or even contemporary judicial interpretation) is that they are almost always unclear. Since they are unclear, it leaves wiggle room for authoritarian types to abuse these spaces if we are not careful. There is a real and tangible slippery slope to a reinterpretation of the First Amendment because of this. By solving one problem, public disorder, you replace it with a whole host of new issues.

Constitutions can be changed. The US constitution was written 250 years ago by slave owners, hate speech was not an issue for them.

If this "what if" reasoning doesn't convince you, consider this: Trump's (or any future President's) administration would be the ones enforcing hate speech laws.

Just pointing out that if there was hate speech laws in the US, Trump probably wouldn't be president.

Living For Love
August 23rd, 2017, 07:11 AM
So basically in a Democracy like ours we basically claim our right for free speech when we want to do hate speech.
Yes.

Hate speech is free speech, the only type of speech that mustn't be allowed is speech that incites violence.

The problem with banning hate speech is considering what falls under the category of hate speech and what does not, and since we currently live in a society that considers calling a man by "he" and a woman by "she" something wrong and unacceptable, one could immediately point out one or two issues concerning banning hate speech.

ShineintheDark
August 23rd, 2017, 10:14 AM
The best policy I can offer is this: everyone is entitled to free speech. You are NOT entitled to a platform. An establishment/ platform should retain the right to expell a person or persons for rhetoric or speech they find inappropriate. Basically, you wanna say something? Say it. Should your workplace/social media site/local debate hall have to necessarily put up with it? No.

lliam
August 23rd, 2017, 11:26 AM
I strongly differentiate between free speech and missionary speech.

A hate speech, for example, is imo then no longer free speech if someone asks to take action against other people just because they live differently, look strange or think differently, or whatsoever ...

Right of freedom of expression or not your own freedom to do so or to speak out what you want ends there, where the freedom of others begins. Or even violates someones freedom.

SingerInTraining
August 23rd, 2017, 12:25 PM
Hate speech is very much subject to interpretation and not well defined. Hate speech often does incite violence. Because of the fact that it does often incite violence it should be controlled. What makes me angry is the mainstream media is allowed to tell blatant lies about people to destroy them and nothing happens. This type of free speech is unforgivable. I also think that many groups spreading hate speech need to be classified as terrorist groups and dealt with for what they are.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 23rd, 2017, 12:49 PM
The best policy I can offer is this: everyone is entitled to free speech. You are NOT entitled to a platform. An establishment/ platform should retain the right to expell a person or persons for rhetoric or speech they find inappropriate. Basically, you wanna say something? Say it. Should your workplace/social media site/local debate hall have to necessarily put up with it? No.

I agree, private businesses and individuals are not entitled to provide a platform for speech they don't like. However, I think private entities should be honest about their inherent bias toward certain viewpoints when asked.

I don't agree to this policy when it comes to public settings. Public colleges, government buildings, and other government-owned public areas should not be able to silence speech in a discriminatory fashion. That would constitute government censorship, which shouldn't happen.

Snowfox
August 23rd, 2017, 12:51 PM
Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.

Winston Churchill said that once.

From my experience it is mainly a certain group of people who is so keen on the free speech thing. And those are also the people who are most taken aback when others use their right for free speech against them and talk about uncomfortable things.

So basically in a Democracy like ours we basically claim our right for free speech when we want to do hate speech.

The whole free speech thing is clearly overdone and basically used for childish arguments since free speech is part of every democracy.

Should there be a law against hate speech? It's tricky...what if your fiery outburst of free speech inspires others to do a crime - kill someone? It's not easy...but it is equally hard to define what hate speech would comprise.
So basically outlawing hate speech is not really an option in my opinion.

If I say something and someone is stupid enough to act because of it and kills someone. Its not my fault. Everyone is accountable for their own actions.

SingerInTraining
August 23rd, 2017, 02:20 PM
If I say something and someone is stupid enough to act because of it and kills someone. Its not my fault. Everyone is accountable for their own actions.

That is MOSTLY true. However of your intentions in saying it are to try to convince someone to commit violence as some people are doing these days it can be your responsibility. This is of course talking about hate speech not free speech in general.

The Byrd
August 23rd, 2017, 03:16 PM
Hate speech is code for thoughtcrime.

Porpoise101
August 23rd, 2017, 05:41 PM
Constitutions can be changed. The US constitution was written 250 years ago by slave owners, hate speech was not an issue for them.Sure, the US Constitution can be changed. But I don't think you understand how difficult it would be to do so, especially when you consider the First Amendment's favored status among the people of this country. Changing the First Amendment is not politically feasible currently.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that the US passes an amendment that bans hate speech. How do you define it? Are certain types of speech exempt? You would have to clarify these positions.
Just pointing out that if there was hate speech laws in the US, Trump probably wouldn't be president.I doubt it. Racists use "code speech" to signal their political goals to the right base without having to resort to slurs and such. This is what many former overt racists did, especially in the South, after the Civil Rights Movement made that kind of talk extremely unpalatable in the early 70s. Trump is a great example of this because he does not say any 'red flag words' and still manages to convey xenophobic implications.

Plus, political speech is even more protected than normal speech in the US. You would have to take it to the courts to determine which has supremacy if you do not make it clear in a proposed "Hate Speech Amendment". It is likely that racist political speech could still be protected in such a scenario.

Dmaxd123
August 23rd, 2017, 05:51 PM
in todays world of everyone being offended by anyone that doesn't share the same opinion as them, we can't even START to really break into what is or is not hate speech


in reality common sense needs to make a comeback and people need to not be soo emotional, if we don't agree fine lets talk about something else or have a civil discussion about our differences don't just ban our freedom of communication over a minority of the populations disagreements

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 23rd, 2017, 08:08 PM
There is no logical reason to start messing around with the Constitution. It has served us well for 230 years, I see no reason why we need to start changing it now just because some people are getting their panties in a wad.

In reality, there is no practical way to change the Constitution in such a way. There would need to be a very large majority of congressmen or state legislatures in favor of such an amendment. Just given that the vast majority of Americans do not support banning hate speech, that is extremely unlikely to happen any time. There would likely be legal problems beyond that. A hate speech amendment would directly contradict with all legal interpretations of the First Amendment. I'm not sure how that would be worked out, since there has never been an amendment nor proposed amendment (that I know of) that directly violates one of the original 10 Rights, but I know it would it would be troublesome to say the least.

Also, it would be disturbing and admittedly scary to allow the government the power to start messing around with Constitutional Rights. I know I say this a lot, but could lead down a very slippery slope if permitted.

mattsmith48
August 23rd, 2017, 09:09 PM
If I say something and someone is stupid enough to act because of it and kills someone. Its not my fault. Everyone is accountable for their own actions.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, but it would also be your fault for putting that idea into their head.


But for the sake of argument, let's say that the US passes an amendment that bans hate speech. How do you define it? Are certain types of speech exempt? You would have to clarify these positions.

Promoting hatred towards a certain ground based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religious believes. Sounds pretty simple to me.

Living For Love
August 24th, 2017, 08:20 AM
Promoting hatred towards a certain ground based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religious believes. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Are the Charlie Hebdo cartoons a promotion of hatred towards Muslims?
Is someone who disagrees with the removal of the statues of confederation generals promoting hatred towards black people?
Are Trump voters promoting hatred towards anyone who isn't a white, hetero, cis, Christian male when voting for him or showing their support for Trump?
Am I promoting hatred towards trans people if I refuse to use their preferred pronouns?
Am I promoting hatred towards women if I organise a public rally against abortion?
Am I promoting hatred towards black people if I label BLM a terrorist organisation?

lliam
August 24th, 2017, 09:43 AM
If I say something and someone is stupid enough to act because of it and kills someone. Its not my fault.

May be not technically. But morally, you are jointly responsible.


And accordingly to our often quoted friendly neighbor's saying:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ndpONlAjSnw/TWclUn4P3cI/AAAAAAAADIM/RcNjIWBnFYc/s400/spideyquote.jpg


... also includes the power of speech. even if you are not aware of it.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 24th, 2017, 10:06 AM
Is calling the Christian God "A murderous rage monster" promoting hatred towards Christians?
Is defending the police in the case of a shooting promoting hatred towards black people?
Am I promoting hatred against Muslims by calling a Muslim terrorist a Muslim?
Am I promoting hatred by suggesting that there are psychological differences between men and women?
Am I promoting hatred towards Muslims by calling Mohammed a murderous pedophile (which he was)?
Am I promoting hatred against the LGBT+ community by saying that there is no such thing as a androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian sexuality?
Am I promoting hatred against women by waving a sign saying abortion is murder?
Am I promoting hatred against Native Indians by dressing up as one for a Thanksgiving play?

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2017, 10:48 AM
Are the Charlie Hebdo cartoons a promotion of hatred towards Muslims?

No they were just making fun of the prophet, that's fine, if you are making fun of Jesus it's not hatred towards Christians, same thing with any other religion.

Is someone who disagrees with the removal of the statues of confederation generals promoting hatred towards black people?

If they protest it by waving Nazi flags and wearing KKK Robes, yes. If not they are just being ignorant or denying what those statues represents.

Are Trump voters promoting hatred towards anyone who isn't a white, hetero, cis, Christian male when voting for him or showing their support for Trump?

If they publicly say that's the reason they voted for him, or if they voted for him because he's openly racist and xenophobic, or if they voted for him because he said Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorist and we should ban them Yes but they have to say it publicly, if they just voted for him and never said that's the reason or that's just not the reason they voted for him that's not promoting hatred. It would be like saying if you didn't vote for Hillary you're sexist.

Am I promoting hatred towards trans people if I refuse to use their preferred pronouns?

No that's just being an asshole. Prohibiting transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice because they might molest our kids that's promoting hatred with fear mongering, they are transgenders not Catholic priests. See that goes with the first one, people no that's just a joke, it's not promoting hatred towards Catholics.

Am I promoting hatred towards women if I organise a public rally against abortion?

Against abortion? Yes. Pro-life? No.

Am I promoting hatred towards black people if I label BLM a terrorist organisation?

Yes.

Is calling the Christian God "A murderous rage monster" promoting hatred towards Christians?

No that's just pointing out a fact anyone who actually read the old testament would know.

Is defending the police in the case of a shooting promoting hatred towards black people?

It depends on the context, like what happen, why did he shoot ect.

Am I promoting hatred against Muslims by calling a Muslim terrorist a Muslim?

If you call him Muslim before that information is publicly reveal by the media, yes.

Am I promoting hatred by suggesting that there are psychological differences between men and women?

If it's a proven scientific fact, no. If you say it and add it makes men superior, yes.

Am I promoting hatred towards Muslims by calling Mohammed a murderous pedophile (which he was)?

This goes for all religions, if its in the religious text it's fine to criticize it, whether it's Muhammad having a sexual relationship with a nine year old girl, or God being a mass murderer, or Joseph Smith being a con man.

Am I promoting hatred against the LGBT+ community by saying that there is no such thing as a androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian sexuality?

Yes.

Am I promoting hatred against women by waving a sign saying abortion is murder?

Depends of the context. see my answer on abortion earlier.

Am I promoting hatred against Native Indians by dressing up as one for a Thanksgiving play?

Why would you dress as a native Indian for a Thanksgiving play? Indian people have nothing to do with Thanksgiving, it would be like having the Easter Bunny in a Christmas play.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 24th, 2017, 11:32 AM
Why would you dress as a native Indian for a Thanksgiving play? Indian people have nothing to do with Thanksgiving, it would be like having the Easter Bunny in a Christmas play.
I am talking of American Thanksgiving, not Canadian Thanksgiving. American Thanksgiving involves American Indians.

Living For Love
August 24th, 2017, 12:12 PM
No they were just making fun of the prophet, that's fine, if you are making fun of Jesus it's not hatred towards Christians, same thing with any other religion.
Would it be hate speech if Charlie Hebdo made a cartoon mocking the victims of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting?

If they protest it by waving Nazi flags and wearing KKK Robes, yes.
Do you consider hate speech if I wave a communist flag on an anti-capitalist rally while shouting "F*ck capitalism"?

Am I promoting hatred towards immigrants/jews/black people if I participate in a Golden Dawn rally in Greece while waving one of their flags? (Golden Dawn is an ultranationalist, racist, far-right political party in Greece, their flag is shown below).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tOZDoIe1HDs/UIa_84EmrrI/AAAAAAAAAA0/fiYNgi1Td3c/s1600/2000px-Meandros_flag.svg.png http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DWCCFM/member-of-far-right-greek-party-chrysi-avgi-golden-dawn-with-flag-DWCCFM.jpg





Am I promoting hatred towards immigrants/jews/black people if I buy a 990 black/gold Versace Greek Key fine leather clutch briefcase, featuring a central metal closure and an internal zip pocket? (shown below)



http://www.versace.com/dw/image/v2/ABAO_PRD/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-ver-master-catalog/default/dw626b1b67/original/90_DL26512-DVEGL_D41OH_20_GreekKeyClutchBriefcase-Bags-versace-online-store_0_1.png?sw=1440&sh=2000&sm=fit



If they publicly say that's the reason they voted for him, or if they voted for him because he's openly racist and xenophobic, or if they voted for him because he said Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorist and we should ban them Yes but they have to say it publicly, if they just voted for him and never said that's the reason or that's just not the reason they voted for him that's not promoting hatred. It would be like saying if you didn't vote for Hillary you're sexist.
So, if I say to a random person on the street "I voted for Trump because he's racist", you consider that sentence hate speech?

No that's just being an asshole. Prohibiting transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice because they might molest our kids that's promoting hatred with fear mongering, they are transgenders not Catholic priests. See that goes with the first one, people no that's just a joke, it's not promoting hatred towards Catholics.
Am I promoting hatred against catholic priests if I label them molesters and rapists just like you did?
Am I promoting hatred towards cisgender people if I support the right transgenders have to use the bathroom of their choice?

Against abortion? Yes. Pro-life? No.
Imagine if Trump's administration overturned Roe v. Wade. Would I be promoting hatred if I participated in a public rally against the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Yes.
Am I promoting hatred if I label ISIS a terrorist organisation?

If you call him Muslim before that information is publicly reveal by the media, yes.
What if I actually personally knew the terrorist and knew he was a Muslim because he had told me so? What about the first person ever that tells the media the terrorist was a Muslim? What if I say he was a Muslim after the media had publicly revealed he was a Muslim but the media were wrong and he was in fact agnostic?

If it's a proven scientific fact, no. If you say it and add it makes men superior, yes.
Is it hate speech if I say women are smarter than men based on no scientific evidence? Is it hate speech if I say men are smarter than women based on no scientific evidence?

Yes.
Am I promoting hatred against anyone who would not include themselves as part of the LGBT+ community by saying that there is in fact an androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian sexuality?

Why would you dress as a native Indian for a Thanksgiving play? Indian people have nothing to do with Thanksgiving, it would be like having the Easter Bunny in a Christmas play.
Why he would is irrelevant. Would he be promoting hatred or not?

---

Am I promoting hatred against black people if I decide to wear dreadlocks? (I'm a white male, btw)

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 24th, 2017, 12:30 PM
To be clear, you are saying that it should be a criminal offense to publicly disagree with imaginary gender ideology and/or to disagree with the slaughter of babies?

I consider myself to be for free speech
You really should reconsider that, because anyone with any common sense obviously sees that you are not for free speech.

http://cdn.liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/20729743_1456584871122794_6397927534737772051_n.png
Is this image promoting hate-speech against the indoctrinated? Should we ban it too?

http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/cms/IB/30491-bible-table-sized.400w.tn.jpg

Hey, doesn't the Bible promote hatred towards LGBT+ lifestyles? Should we ban that too?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png

And doesn't this flag promote hatred against the Palestinian people? Why don't we ban this too?

http://about-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/34876-burning-rainbow-flag-33486.jpg

Hey? Doesn't this promote hatred of LGBTTQQIAAP peoples? Why don't we ban rainbow flag burnings too?

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2017, 01:58 PM
I am talking of American Thanksgiving, not Canadian Thanksgiving. American Thanksgiving involves American Indians.

Oh you mean Native Americans, you need to use the right terms if not people might not know what you are talking about.

Would it be hate speech if Charlie Hebdo made a cartoon mocking the victims of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting?

Depends how they do it, if they do it in a mocking way like they did for the earthquake in Italy, its just bad taste, but if they do it in a homophobic way than yes.

Do you consider hate speech if I wave a communist flag on an anti-capitalist rally while shouting "F*ck capitalism"?

By the definition I posted yesterday no it wouldn't be.

Am I promoting hatred towards immigrants/jews/black people if I participate in a Golden Dawn rally in Greece while waving one of their flags? (Golden Dawn is an ultranationalist, racist, far-right political party in Greece, their flag is shown below).

image (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tOZDoIe1HDs/UIa_84EmrrI/AAAAAAAAAA0/fiYNgi1Td3c/s1600/2000px-Meandros_flag.svg.png) image (http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DWCCFM/member-of-far-right-greek-party-chrysi-avgi-golden-dawn-with-flag-DWCCFM.jpg)

A Pretty obvious yes here.

Am I promoting hatred towards immigrants/jews/black people if I buy a 990 black/gold Versace Greek Key fine leather clutch briefcase, featuring a central metal closure and an internal zip pocket? (shown below)



image (http://www.versace.com/dw/image/v2/ABAO_PRD/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-ver-master-catalog/default/dw626b1b67/original/90_DL26512-DVEGL_D41OH_20_GreekKeyClutchBriefcase-Bags-versace-online-store_0_1.png?sw=1440&sh=2000&sm=fit)

If you only have that it's probably more to provoke people than hatred. I think the bigger concern here is that people are ready to pay 990 for that.

So, if I say to a random person on the street "I voted for Trump because he's racist", you consider that sentence hate speech?

If you stop there no, if after you start rambling about Mexicans, and Muslims and blacks than yes.

Am I promoting hatred against catholic priests if I label them molesters and rapists just like you did?

I was raise Catholic, I think I'm allowed to make that joke and people know that's was it is, just an easy, bad, joke, everyone knows it's not all Catholic Priests are pedophiles. If the Vatican wasn't doing everything they can to protect the priests who molest children it would be a different story.

Am I promoting hatred towards cisgender people if I support the right transgenders have to use the bathroom of their choice?

No, you're not taking way or promote to take way their rights by letting transgenders use the bathroom they want.

Imagine if Trump's administration overturned Roe v. Wade. Would I be promoting hatred if I participated in a public rally against the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Wouldn't it be the right wing asshole Trump put on the supreme court who would be responsible for overturning it? Anyway it would depends on if they keep it legal for cases of rape, incest or if the live of the mother is in danger, or if you pass legislation to help and support the mothers who need it. That's what being pro-life is. If you outlaw abortion in any cases no exceptions and you tell the women if you get pregnant, you're on your own, you have to carry it to term and raise it by yourself, than yes that is hatred against women.

Am I promoting hatred if I label ISIS a terrorist organisation?

Not really because they promote them self as a terrorist organization.

What if I actually personally knew the terrorist and knew he was a Muslim because he had told me so? What about the first person ever that tells the media the terrorist was a Muslim? What if I say he was a Muslim after the media had publicly revealed he was a Muslim but the media were wrong and he was in fact agnostic?

If you knew the terrorist personally and you think that him being a Muslim is relevant to what happen its fine to say it, but you should precise that you knew him.

The media are usually very careful when it comes to this. If you take what happen in Barcelona last week as an example, when I started the thread on it I think it was about an hour after it happened, at the time they didn't know who did it or why, so they simply said we don't have any information on who did it or why, but this is similar to other attacks done by ISIS supporters in Europe in the past year. They also said that there was vandalism and protesting against tourism in the same area of the city in the weeks prior to the attack it could be that too. That's fine. If minutes after it happened you say this was a terrorist attack done by Muslims and we should ban all the Muslim and bomb the shit out of all Muslim countries you are not media you are Donald Trump's Twitter account, yes this would be considered hatred towards Muslims.

Is it hate speech if I say women are smarter than men based on no scientific evidence? Is it hate speech if I say men are smarter than women based on no scientific evidence?

If you are a man and you say women are smarter, no. If you say men are smarter than women I guess you could consider it as hate. Just want to add to this by saying if you are a scientist looking at finding psychological differences that haven't been proven yet. It is fine to say one is better than the other if that's what you get too or if you use it at the start of your research like as an hypothesis or something. If you purposely false your data to get to one result that is a different story.

Am I promoting hatred against anyone who would not include themselves as part of the LGBT+ community by saying that there is in fact an androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian sexuality?

I don't know

Why he would is irrelevant. Would he be promoting hatred or not?

Well now that I know who he was talking about I can answer. If its done in a caricature way I guess you consider it hatred.

To be clear, you are saying that it should be a criminal offense to publicly disagree with imaginary gender ideology and/or to disagree with the slaughter of babies?

It depends of the context if you take abortion as an example, I'm guessing that's what you mean by the slaughter of babies, it depends on whether you are pro-life or anti-abortion.


image (http://cdn.liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/20729743_1456584871122794_6397927534737772051_n.png)
Is this image promoting hate-speech against the indoctrinated? Should we ban it too?

image (http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/cms/IB/30491-bible-table-sized.400w.tn.jpg)

Hey, doesn't the Bible promote hatred towards LGBT+ lifestyles? Should we ban that too?

Not only the LGBT but also hatred against women and it also promote slavery and the murder of people for stupid things like not being a virgin or working on Sunday.

image (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png)

And doesn't this flag promote hatred against the Palestinian people? Why don't we ban this too?

image (http://about-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/34876-burning-rainbow-flag-33486.jpg)

Hey? Doesn't this promote hatred of LGBTTQQIAAP peoples? Why don't we ban rainbow flag burnings too?

For what other reason would someone burn the rainbow flag?

Double posts merged. Please edit your post next time. ~Jinglebottom

Dmaxd123
August 24th, 2017, 02:33 PM
a word that I see in a few replies is: "depends"

THAT one word shows why we in the great United States of America, need not get worked up over Canada's views or any other countries views upon our constitution.

think about how the amendments were written: they were written in very broad terms to allow them to stay pertinent generation after generation but also pointed enough to keep the focus within the guidelines

did the founding fathers know there would be a movement called BLM, there would be an lgbt community? nope but they recognized that as the country changes a few fundamental rights should be granted and not be stripped away from the citizens

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 24th, 2017, 02:42 PM
I'm curious as to why you are permitting mocking and dissing of religion in your proposed "Hate Speech" system, but even questioning or civilly disagreeing with gender ideology or trans-genderism is suddenly a no-no. Mind elaborating on how you aren't bias here?

No, you're not taking way or promote to take way their rights by letting transgenders use the bathroom they want. Their rights

Man, you are funny. You actually believe that people have more rights to use the wrong bathroom than to disagree with the existence of infinite genders? Are you just trolling us now?

It depends of the context if you take abortion as an example, I'm guessing that's what you mean by the slaughter of babies, it depends on whether you are pro-life or anti-abortion.

I'm both. Now answer the question if saying abortion is wrong, and answer my question if you think that publicly disagreeing with gender identity ideology should also be banned.


Not only the LGBT but also hatred against women and it also promote slavery and the murder of people for stupid things like not being a virgin or working on Sunday.
Answer the question. Should the Bible be banned under your "hate speech" law


For what other reason would someone burn the rainbow flag?
Answer the question. Should the Israeli flag be banned because it can show hatred towards Palestinians, and should we ban burning of the LGBT+ flag?

If you are a man and you say women are smarter, no. If you say men are smarter than women I guess you could consider it as hate. Just want to add to this by saying if you are a scientist looking at finding psychological differences that haven't been proven yet. It is fine to say one is better than the other if that's what you get too or if you use it at the start of your research like as an hypothesis or something. If you purposely false your data to get to one result that is a different story.
So, is saying that a biological sex change is impossible and that a trans-man isn't truly a male, is that also hate speech? It is a scientific fact that such is impossible.

Also, are you finally realizing now that you aren't pro-free speech, or are you still lying to yourself about it?

Jinglebottom
August 24th, 2017, 02:46 PM
I know you're all particularly passionate about your opinions, but please keep this thread civil (or as civil as it can possibly be, at the minimum), and do not instigate fights with each other.

~Jinglebottom

Living For Love
August 24th, 2017, 04:08 PM
Depends how they do it, if they do it in a mocking way like they did for the earthquake in Italy, its just bad taste, but if they do it in a homophobic way than yes.
So you don't consider the Italy earthquake cartoon hate speech against the Italians? Ok.

You know, I was going to ask you to define "homophobic way" more precisely, but then I thought I could simply show you some cartoons mocking the Orlando shooting and then let you decide if they represent hate speech or not. And guess what, I couldn't find any! And you know why? Because no one dares to make a joke mocking the death of those people, especially the death of (mostly) gay people. You don't see John Oliver or Jimmy Fallon making jokes about it like they make jokes about Trump or Republican or Christians, because they know that if they do, they will be massacred in the social media by liberals and SJWs. But no one finds any harm in making jokes about Trump or ridiculing conservative people.

I only found this photo, which is simply not funny or laughable, but picture John Oliver, for instance, saying what's in the description and then showing the picture to the audience, on live TV. Would that be hate speech?

https://i.imgur.com/RvqnweB.jpg


By the definition I posted yesterday no it wouldn't be.
Whatever that definition is, if someone waves a Nazi flag at a rally while shouting "F*ck communism", you consider that hate speech, but if someone waves a communist flag while shouting "F*ck fascism", you won't consider that hate speech. I need you to explain me this inconsistency.

If you only have that it's probably more to provoke people than hatred. I think the bigger concern here is that people are ready to pay 990 for that.
So you're saying Donatella Versace designed that clutch to provoke people? And that if someone bought that clutch, they buy it with the intention of provoking people? Basically, according to your opinion, waving a Golden Dawn flag or the Versace clutch is the same.

I was raise Catholic, I think I'm allowed to make that joke and people know that's was it is, just an easy, bad, joke, everyone knows it's not all Catholic Priests are pedophiles. If the Vatican wasn't doing everything they can to protect the priests who molest children it would be a different story.
I wasn't raised a Catholic, and I'm not Catholic, am I not allowed to make that joke as well?

Wouldn't it be the right wing asshole Trump put on the supreme court who would be responsible for overturning it? Anyway it would depends on if they keep it legal for cases of rape, incest or if the live of the mother is in danger, or if you pass legislation to help and support the mothers who need it. That's what being pro-life is. If you outlaw abortion in any cases no exceptions and you tell the women if you get pregnant, you're on your own, you have to carry it to term and raise it by yourself, than yes that is hatred against women.
Let's say they outlaw abortion in any cases, no exceptions (even I am against that, but let's just consider it). Would it be promoting hatred if I participated in a rally contesting that decision? Would it be promoting hatred if I participated in a rally supporting that decision?

Not really because they promote them self as a terrorist organization.
Hmm, nope. ISIS terrorists consider themselves to be holy warriors who believe in a specific ideology (Islamist extremism) that is tied to a specific religion: Islam (even though Obama refuses to call them "Islamic").

Either way, if you don't want to use the ISIS example, we can use other groups. Am I promoting hatred if I label Hezbollah, Boko Haram or PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) terrorist organisations?

The media are usually very careful when it comes to this. If you take what happen in Barcelona last week as an example, when I started the thread on it I think it was about an hour after it happened, at the time they didn't know who did it or why, so they simply said we don't have any information on who did it or why, but this is similar to other attacks done by ISIS supporters in Europe in the past year. They also said that there was vandalism and protesting against tourism in the same area of the city in the weeks prior to the attack it could be that too. That's fine. If minutes after it happened you say this was a terrorist attack done by Muslims and we should ban all the Muslim and bomb the shit out of all Muslim countries you are not media you are Donald Trump's Twitter account, yes this would be considered hatred towards Muslims.
What if I said the terrorist was a Trump supporter? Or a Hillary supporter? Or a white, heterosexual, cisgender, male?

If you are a man and you say women are smarter, no. If you say men are smarter than women I guess you could consider it as hate.
So, I am a biological man (XY):
- If I say men are smarter than women, it is hate speech.
- If I say women are smarter than men, it is not hate speech.

Imagine I was a biological female (XX):
- If I said men are smarter than women, it would not be hate speech.
- If I said women are smarter than men, it would be hate speech.

Are you in agreement with this?

I don't know
So do you retract the claim that I am promoting hatred against the LGBT+ community by saying that there is no such thing as a androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian sexuality?

Well now that I know who he was talking about I can answer. If its done in a caricature way I guess you consider it hatred.
You didn't consider the caricatures of Mohammad or Jesus hate speech. I'm not sure what PlasmaHam had in mind when he asked this, but I'd say he meant only dressing as a Native American for a festivity, no caricature or mocking in any way, just dressing as one.

You didn't answer this question: am I promoting hatred against black people if I decide to wear dreadlocks? (I'm a white male, btw)

Also, people have done hundreds of Trump caricatures in rallies against him and his campaign, do you consider that promoting hatred?

Trump and the Statue of Liberty in sexual positions.

http://progresstribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/e0f9JfOA.jpg


The Statue of Liberty holding Trump's head, and saying "America, resist!"

http://occupydemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/trump.jgp_.jpg


Trump disguised as an elephant.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5sOOKMXMAEhhAP.jpg

SethfromMI
August 24th, 2017, 07:01 PM
i think that is the real question though, where DO we draw the line? There was a broadcaster who got taken off an game which was airing on ESPN the other day before it started? Do you want to know why? The game was being played in Virginia and the name of the broadcaster was Robert Lee. Robert Lee who is Asian by the way, was not allowed to call a game just because of his name. because they were so worried the name of an Asian man because it is so similar to Robert E. Lee that it was going to offend someone.

Ok, now that obviously was a detour from free speech, but if a name alone is going to offend someone, something the poor guy had no choice of when he was born and his parents gave it to him, what are we going to ban from being spoke because it is offensive? I agree with you. I do think people have abused others in the name of free speech. but the question is, where do we draw the line? where do you think it should be drawn.

This is not an attack on you by the way, it is a serious question and I want your honest input. as anyone else as well. if we're going to advocate for stricter free speech, or less free speech, where does the line gets drawn? who determines it? what is the punishment when you go against it?

Dalcourt
August 24th, 2017, 08:48 PM
i think that is the real question though, where DO we draw the line? There was a broadcaster who got taken off an game which was airing on ESPN the other day before it started? Do you want to know why? The game was being played in Virginia and the name of the broadcaster was Robert Lee. Robert Lee who is Asian by the way, was not allowed to call a game just because of his name. because they were so worried the name of an Asian man because it is so similar to Robert E. Lee that it was going to offend someone.

Ok, now that obviously was a detour from free speech, but if a name alone is going to offend someone, something the poor guy had no choice of when he was born and his parents gave it to him, what are we going to ban from being spoke because it is offensive? I agree with you. I do think people have abused others in the name of free speech. but the question is, where do we draw the line? where do you think it should be drawn.

This is not an attack on you by the way, it is a serious question and I want your honest input. as anyone else as well. if we're going to advocate for stricter free speech, or less free speech, where does the line gets drawn? who determines it? what is the punishment when you go against it?

I know that it is hard to draw a line but since this discussion here has such a low level I just don't think it will lead us somewhere and is worth participating.

I never said that I was for limiting free speech anyway. People can say whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as they can handle it vice versa.

This whole thread turned into a childish provoking and trying to pick fights. There would be way more interesting cases than internet memes to discuss but since people obviously lack the maturity for serious discussion about free speech and what could be considered hate speech I pass here.

Porpoise101
August 24th, 2017, 09:24 PM
Promoting hatred towards a certain ground based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religious believes. Sounds pretty simple to me.What is 'hatred' though. If it is saying something like "[x type of people] are bad" then it could cross over with legitimate criticisms. If it is something like "kill all of [x type of people]" then it is already a criminal offense with the current law as long as the threats are actionable.

Maybe the only way I would be ok with hate speech legislation is if it made threats illegal. These are clearly understood and can be determined pretty objectively. But I don't think I am convinced to go further than that.

Living For Love
August 25th, 2017, 06:18 AM
I know that it is hard to draw a line but since this discussion here has such a low level I just don't think it will lead us somewhere and is worth participating.

I never said that I was for limiting free speech anyway. People can say whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as they can handle it vice versa.

This whole thread turned into a childish provoking and trying to pick fights. There would be way more interesting cases than internet memes to discuss but since people obviously lack the maturity for serious discussion about free speech and what could be considered hate speech I pass here.
I love the low level rhetoric you're using to dismiss my points and my attempt to understand Matt's point of view. It's a basic debating rule, if you make a claim, you must be ready to defend it. You state: "People can say whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as they can handle it vice versa." Fine, then. If someone insults Trump and calls him an idiot, can I insult the BLM and call them terrorists? Can I insult gay people freely with no fear of persecution? Can I make jokes and mock the death of gay people in the Orlando shooting just like jokes are made about Trump and people wish his death or assassination? Can I insult black people and white supremacists in the same way and in the same manner? Why should I be allowed to make jokes about a certain topic and not be allowed to make jokes about the others? Why can people be offended if I insult the LGBT community or make jokes about rape and feminism and not be offended if I insult conservative people, Trump or nazis? Can you understand the hypocrisy and the double-standards in all this?

mattsmith48
August 25th, 2017, 07:34 AM
i think that is the real question though, where DO we draw the line? There was a broadcaster who got taken off an game which was airing on ESPN the other day before it started? Do you want to know why? The game was being played in Virginia and the name of the broadcaster was Robert Lee. Robert Lee who is Asian by the way, was not allowed to call a game just because of his name. because they were so worried the name of an Asian man because it is so similar to Robert E. Lee that it was going to offend someone.

Ok, now that obviously was a detour from free speech, but if a name alone is going to offend someone, something the poor guy had no choice of when he was born and his parents gave it to him, what are we going to ban from being spoke because it is offensive? I agree with you. I do think people have abused others in the name of free speech. but the question is, where do we draw the line? where do you think it should be drawn.

This is not an attack on you by the way, it is a serious question and I want your honest input. as anyone else as well. if we're going to advocate for stricter free speech, or less free speech, where does the line gets drawn? who determines it? what is the punishment when you go against it?

Promoting hatred towards a certain ground based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religious believes. You are allowed to criticize as long it is fact base, like the Vatican protecting pedophiles. You are also allowed to make jokes as long it is clear it is a joke and that you don't really mean it.

What is 'hatred' though. If it is saying something like "[x type of people] are bad" then it could cross over with legitimate criticisms. If it is something like "kill all of [x type of people]" then it is already a criminal offense with the current law as long as the threats are actionable.

Maybe the only way I would be ok with hate speech legislation is if it made threats illegal. These are clearly understood and can be determined pretty objectively. But I don't think I am convinced to go further than that.

I would say, if you are demonizing or saying hateful bullshit aimed at a certain group.

SethfromMI
August 25th, 2017, 08:11 AM
Promoting hatred towards a certain ground based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religious believes. You are allowed to criticize as long it is fact base, like the Vatican protecting pedophiles. You are also allowed to make jokes as long it is clear it is a joke and that you don't really mean it.



I would say, if you are demonizing or saying hateful bullshit aimed at a certain group.

Ok what is fact? If someone doesn't believe in God, by your definition, could they try to hate on religious people and say well science "proves" their is no God, since many scientists have tried making that claim over the years. who is determining what is fact or fiction. again, not an attack on you, a question which sincerely needs to be addressed though. I think the people in control over what is fact or fiction could abuse such a power.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 25th, 2017, 08:55 AM
I still haven't had any answers to my questions mattsmith48. If you want to convince me that your hate speech proposal is fair and smart, you need to respond to my points instead of just ignoring them.

Promoting hatred towards a certain ground based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religious believes. You are allowed to criticize as long it is fact base, like the Vatican protecting pedophiles. You are also allowed to make jokes as long it is clear it is a joke and that you don't really mean it.
So, can I then say that trans-males are not and can never be males? Can I say that Planned Parenthood kills more blacks in a year than the KKK has ever done? Also, can you truly admit that you've ever said that Catholic pedophile "joke" without intending it too offend? Since you justify that joke with "facts" can I also make jokes about the tranny suicide rate and people getting dumber due to weed smoking (both are statistical facts, or at least well accepted theories)

You have yet to convince me why criticism and outright mocking of religion is perfectly okay, but publicly questioning gender ideology and transgenderism sends you to the guillotine.

mattsmith48
August 25th, 2017, 09:20 AM
Ok what is fact? If someone doesn't believe in God, by your definition, could they try to hate on religious people and say well science "proves" their is no God, since many scientists have tried making that claim over the years. who is determining what is fact or fiction. again, not an attack on you, a question which sincerely needs to be addressed though. I think the people in control over what is fact or fiction could abuse such a power.

Well they are already laws that prevent governments and the people in power to impose or discriminate certain religious believe no matter how crazy they are. So I think a lot would fall under already existing anti-discrimination laws especially when it comes to abuse of power. If you want to criticize the religious believes like when I said that the Christian God is a mass murderer with anger issues you would go to the bible even thought it isn't even close to be scientifically accurate, it would be like criticizing a character in any regular science-fiction or fantasy book.

Dalcourt
August 25th, 2017, 09:31 AM
I love the low level rhetoric you're using to dismiss my points and my attempt to understand Matt's point of view. It's a basic debating rule, if you make a claim, you must be ready to defend it. You state: "People can say whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as they can handle it vice versa." Fine, then. If someone insults Trump and calls him an idiot, can I insult the BLM and call them terrorists? Can I insult gay people freely with no fear of persecution? Can I make jokes and mock the death of gay people in the Orlando shooting just like jokes are made about Trump and people wish his death or assassination? Can I insult black people and white supremacists in the same way and in the same manner? Why should I be allowed to make jokes about a certain topic and not be allowed to make jokes about the others? Why can people be offended if I insult the LGBT community or make jokes about rape and feminism and not be offended if I insult conservative people, Trump or nazis? Can you understand the hypocrisy and the double-standards in all this?


I am for free speech without any limitations so I really don't understand what you want from me.
As long go as I'm concerned you can say whatever you want as long as I am allowed to say whatever I want to.

I just feel this whole throwing around pics and numerous examples since it will basically lead nowhere.
There will always be double standards so what? They are everywhere. We are all hypocrits, ya know, that's human nature. Find fault in others not yourself.
So where do you feel this whole discussion should lead?

It's basically a dead end...you can never get a solution agreeable for all.

So if you can show me where this whole thing here leads fine with me...otherwise count me out and bother mattsmith48...since he wants limitations not I.

SethfromMI
August 25th, 2017, 11:19 AM
Well they are already laws that prevent governments and the people in power to impose or discriminate certain religious believe no matter how crazy they are. So I think a lot would fall under already existing anti-discrimination laws especially when it comes to abuse of power. If you want to criticize the religious believes like when I said that the Christian God is a mass murderer with anger issues you would go to the bible even thought it isn't even close to be scientifically accurate, it would be like criticizing a character in any regular science-fiction or fantasy book.

you skirted around the key question though. WHO defines what is the "truth". The Nazis determined Jews and many other individuals were not as human. Because they weren't, they exterminated over 12 MILLION people. They're were doing their best to kill a whole lot more. they justified it with the "truth". We know it is not the only example of mass causalities in history of what happens when certain individuals try to determine what is true or not. Yes, the Holocaust is an extreme example. I know you don't want anything like that to happen, so I am not trying to pin anything of the sort on you. but, it brings up the crucial question of who decides what is true or not and how much power do they have to squash those who goes against it in the new free speech system your proposing.

Babs
August 25th, 2017, 11:48 AM
Honestly tho? As long as no one is being violent I don't even know why anyone should be so invested in making sure no one hates them. I'm of the opinion that anyone can hate me for whatever reason they want no matter how unethical. Hate me for being a woman or a queer, I don't care as long as there is no violence. It's a damn waste of time to be all tense over some joe schmo in missourah who I don't even know and what he thinks of gays, or what have you. If I'm out holding hands with my hot lesbian lover and someone goes "ewwwwww dykes" it might hurt my feelings, but as long as they don't hit anyone or continue to harass me then I will move on with my day because that's the best thing you can do.

Maybe if it's a close friend or a family member, I would care but then it's a personal issue and not a legal one. I'm not invested in the opinions of strangers, they'll think what they want.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 25th, 2017, 10:25 PM
I am for free speech without any limitations so I really don't understand what you want from me.
As long go as I'm concerned you can say whatever you want as long as I am allowed to say whatever I want to.

I just feel this whole throwing around pics and numerous examples since it will basically lead nowhere.
There will always be double standards so what? They are everywhere. We are all hypocrits, ya know, that's human nature. Find fault in others not yourself.
So where do you feel this whole discussion should lead?

It's basically a dead end...you can never get a solution agreeable for all.

So if you can show me where this whole thing here leads fine with me...otherwise count me out and bother mattsmith48...since he wants limitations not I.

If you don't want part in this debate, then it is simple, don't post here. When you keep posting about how this debate is so below your level, people will rightly start to assume that you have something of value to add. If you don't have anything to add, and you don't want people to bother you regarding this issue, then don't post here, easy as that.

Secondly, I fully realize that people are bias hypocrites, and that any hate speech law would be subject to the bias and hypocrisy of government officials. The reason I keep harping on this is because our friend mattsmith48 doesn't realize that, his blind trust in big government as always, so I am trying to show him the light.

Dalcourt
August 25th, 2017, 11:12 PM
If you don't want part in this debate, then it is simple, don't post here. When you keep posting about how this debate is so below your level, people will rightly start to assume that you have something of value to add. If you don't have anything to add, and you don't want people to bother you regarding this issue, then don't post here, easy as that.

Secondly, I fully realize that people are bias hypocrites, and that any hate speech law would be subject to the bias and hypocrisy of government officials. The reason I keep harping on this is because our friend mattsmith48 doesn't realize that, his blind trust in big government as always, so I am trying to show him the light.

According to my right to free speech I can post on whatever thread I want, okay?

I was just wondering why @LivingforLove asked me the same bullshit he asked MattSmith while I never said I agreed with him on anything here. So maybe if people respond to others within a debate they should read who said what first.


You will never be able to show the light to anyone in this kind or debate since there is no light or truth or whatever. You see your truth the others see their truth. Why would you be able to enlighten him here while you are never are prepared to let yourself get enlightened about those evil thingso like climate change and general issues?
Why did you complain about Nazi witch hunts in another thread? People calling out others for what they are isn't that free speech?


For the regulation of speech thing:
Words may not hurt as much as actions do.But they can be powerful, too...and they can provoke actions. And even though I feel everyone should be entitled to say whatever they want people should do it in a responsible way as words can indeed destroy life.
Government can't help us here, we, the people have to do this...

Another thought:
A lot of people belonging to minorities of any kinds favour free speech...even though they have to suffer far more from hate speech than the majority. As a member of the majority it's easy to be all for free speech but I often wonder if people would think the same if suddenly they were the minority.

Living For Love
August 26th, 2017, 05:05 AM
According to my right to free speech I can post on whatever thread I want, okay?

I was just wondering why @LivingforLove asked me the same bullshit he asked MattSmith while I never said I agreed with him on anything here. So maybe if people respond to others within a debate they should read who said what first.
You didn't even make clear what your position on this subject was. I asked you those questions because I just wanted to hear your opinion on them. You said "as long as they can handle it vice versa.", and I wanted you to clarify it. You also said someting about being an offensive asshole, and I just wanted to ask you if I have the right and freedom to be an offensive asshole or not. But you didn't answer any of this, which shows you're not even worthy of debating or having a serious discussion with, so yea.

You will never be able to show the light to anyone in this kind or debate since there is no light or truth or whatever. You see your truth the others see their truth. Why would you be able to enlighten him here while you are never are prepared to let yourself get enlightened about those evil thingso like climate change and general issues?
We want to know what your truth is.

For the regulation of speech thing:
Words may not hurt as much as actions do.But they can be powerful, too...and they can provoke actions. And even though I feel everyone should be entitled to say whatever they want people should do it in a responsible way as words can indeed destroy life.
What words are powerful and can destroy life?

Government can't help us here, we, the people have to do this...
By what means?

Another thought:
A lot of people belonging to minorities of any kinds favour free speech...even though they have to suffer far more from hate speech than the majority. As a member of the majority it's easy to be all for free speech but I often wonder if people would think the same if suddenly they were the minority.
I'm personally a minority in my country (and even in Europe) in a lot of aspects (my political/social views and my religion, for instance). Trump supporters are a minority in the USA, more people actually voted for Hillary than for Trump, yet I'd say most Trump supporters would agree with me when I say hate speech is free speech and they wouldn't want to criminalise hate speech.

mattsmith48
August 26th, 2017, 10:52 AM
you skirted around the key question though. WHO defines what is the "truth". The Nazis determined Jews and many other individuals were not as human. Because they weren't, they exterminated over 12 MILLION people. They're were doing their best to kill a whole lot more. they justified it with the "truth". We know it is not the only example of mass causalities in history of what happens when certain individuals try to determine what is true or not. Yes, the Holocaust is an extreme example. I know you don't want anything like that to happen, so I am not trying to pin anything of the sort on you. but, it brings up the crucial question of who decides what is true or not and how much power do they have to squash those who goes against it in the new free speech system your proposing.

In most places it is already illegal for the government to kill, imprison or discriminate based on things like religion, race, sexuality, etc. If not probably a good idea to pass that first. As for the truth I already explained this, you go with scientific facts.

Stronk Serb
August 26th, 2017, 01:25 PM
In Serbia hate speech is defined as a public call for violence against an individual or a group of similar individuals. So if I say to my friend hans that Jews should be gassed, I would be fine, but if I said that as a speaker on a rally, I would be under arrest.

Porpoise101
August 26th, 2017, 03:49 PM
In Serbia hate speech is defined as a public call for violence against an individual or a group of similar individuals. So if I say to my friend hans that Jews should be gassed, I would be fine, but if I said that as a speaker on a rally, I would be under arrest.See, this is the most I would concede I think. A public call to incite violence is already illegal in the US though, so I don't see the point to massively push for such a small reform.

SethfromMI
August 26th, 2017, 09:44 PM
In most places it is already illegal for the government to kill, imprison or discriminate based on things like religion, race, sexuality, etc. If not probably a good idea to pass that first. As for the truth I already explained this, you go with scientific facts.

so scientists get to dictate what we say and what we don't based on truth. therefore, religions have to keep their mouths shut about anything anyone may have a problem with or may consider hateful because it isn't scientifically provable. so you are limiting people's ability to freely practice religion based on your it must be proven by scientific facts criteria.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 26th, 2017, 10:09 PM
so scientists get to dictate what we say and what we don't based on truth. therefore, religions have to keep their mouths shut about anything anyone may have a problem with or may consider hateful because it isn't scientifically provable. so you are limiting people's ability to freely practice religion based on your it must be proven by scientific facts criteria.

Also, the fact that basically everything involving LGBT+ isn't provable scientifically either. Ideas like being born gay or gender disphoria not being a mental illness are based upon scant evidence that barely constitute a scientific theory in most cases (Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/)). Often times it can go against science fact (like insisting that transgender men are not different in anyway than biological males.) I don't want to argue this right now, but let's just agree that LGBT+ issues are not things you can prove using the scientific method, at least currently. Yet then, why is questioning or dismissing the LGBT+ agenda deemed "hate speech" under MattSmith48's proposed hate speech law? According to him, I should be imprisoned or fined simply by saying I don't think there is actually a such thing as an androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian. Would he mind explaining that hypocrisy?

Why did you complain about Nazi witch hunts in another thread? People calling out others for what they are isn't that free speech?

Mind telling me your point here?

According to my right to free speech I can post on whatever thread I want, okay?

I was just wondering why @LivingforLove asked me the same bullshit he asked MattSmith while I never said I agreed with him on anything here. So maybe if people respond to others within a debate they should read who said what first.

According to my right to free speech I can call you a 6-letter word that starts with an "n" and ends with an "r". However, I won't, because I was taught to be respectful with my free speech. I suggest you do the same here, be the better man.

SethfromMI
August 26th, 2017, 10:19 PM
Also, the fact that basically everything involving LGBT+ isn't provable scientifically either. Ideas like being born gay or gender disphoria not being a mental illness are based upon scant evidence that barely constitute a scientific theory in most cases (Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/)). Often times it can go against science fact (like insisting that transgender men are not different in anyway than biological males.) I don't want to argue this right now, but let's just agree that LGBT+ issues are not things you can prove using the scientific method, at least currently. Yet then, why is questioning or dismissing the LGBT+ agenda deemed "hate speech" under MattSmith48's proposed hate speech law? According to him, I should be imprisoned or fined simply by saying I don't think there is actually a such thing as an androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian. Would he mind explaining that hypocrisy?

as a bi guy, I do struggle with how that fits into the Bible and my faith. that being said, I most certainly think religious people should the right to say we do not think this is right and not be able to because science proved it, which, as you were saying, hasn't technically been proven.

when you give an individual/group of people the power to say what can be said or cannot be said, no matter the "Criteria" there is a very high likelihood it will end up being abused. there will be many more things "proved" by science that speaking out against will end up as you mentioned imprisoned or fined.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2017, 12:14 AM
SethfromMI you seem to forget that this is about hate speech, the only thing scientist would stop religious people from doing is using their religious text as an excuse to hate on gays and women. Other religious believes that have been disproven by science like that the universe was created 5,000 years ago and that humans lived with dinosaurs people would still be allowed to believe that.

Dalcourt
August 27th, 2017, 01:51 AM
PlasmaHam my point is that you want to "enlighten" mattsmith48 about things you are guilty yourself: bias, double standards, hypocrisy and close mindedness.

And I don't know why I should be bothered by you calling me a nigger? My grandma was married to a white supremacists KKK supporting guy for many years he never referred to us other than calling my Dad nigger Dad or me niglet or nigs.
But I nice to hear you have been taught to be respectful.

Stronk Serb
August 27th, 2017, 05:38 AM
Also, the fact that basically everything involving LGBT+ isn't provable scientifically either. Ideas like being born gay or gender disphoria not being a mental illness are based upon scant evidence that barely constitute a scientific theory in most cases (Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/)). Often times it can go against science fact (like insisting that transgender men are not different in anyway than biological males.) I don't want to argue this right now, but let's just agree that LGBT+ issues are not things you can prove using the scientific method, at least currently. Yet then, why is questioning or dismissing the LGBT+ agenda deemed "hate speech" under MattSmith48's proposed hate speech law? According to him, I should be imprisoned or fined simply by saying I don't think there is actually a such thing as an androgynous sapiosexual demisexual lesbian. Would he mind explaining that hypocrisy?



Mind telling me your point here?


According to my right to free speech I can call you a 6-letter word that starts with an "n" and ends with an "r". However, I won't, because I was taught to be respectful with my free speech. I suggest you do the same here, be the better man.

In Serbia considering speech regulations with which I agree with is public inciting of violence. I disagree with any symbol banning though. And those are the regulations. No swastika waving and no calling for violence against an individual or individuals. For example saying "Burn fags!" is hate speech, but calling them sick or something gets treated as a personal opinion and it slides.

Living For Love
August 27th, 2017, 08:38 AM
Since mattsmith48 has decided to ignore my posts, I'm going to answer my own questions, just to shed some light on this whole hate speech/free speech issue.

I only found this photo, which is simply not funny or laughable, but picture John Oliver, for instance, saying what's in the description and then showing the picture to the audience, on live TV. Would that be hate speech?
No, it wouldn't be hate speech. There's no such thing as homophobic way or non-homophobic way.

Whatever that definition is, if someone waves a Nazi flag at a rally while shouting "F*ck communism", you consider that hate speech, but if someone waves a communist flag while shouting "F*ck fascism", you won't consider that hate speech. I need you to explain me this inconsistency.
The waving of a nazi flag and the waving of a communist flag is the same. None are examples of spreading of hate or violence. It would be wrong only if, while waiving the flag or not, you were also promoting violence against communists or nazis (let's kill them, let's rape them, etc...). The wave of a flag does not promote violence in any way.

So you're saying Donatella Versace designed that clutch to provoke people? And that if someone bought that clutch, they buy it with the intention of provoking people? Basically, according to your opinion, waving a Golden Dawn flag or the Versace clutch is the same.
I used this whole Versace clutch thing to show how ignorance is, indeed, very very bliss, and to show that what liberals actually think is that hate speech is not free speech only if it bothers them, and that they can't be bothered by something they do not know.

The Greek key is a common decorative element in Greek art, being later incorporated in the Roman art as well. It has been used as a decoration motif in architecture, painting and pottery since 900 BC.

Versace is an Italian luxury fashion company founded by an Italian man (Gianni Versace), headquartered in Italy (Milan) and owned by an Italian company (GIVI Holding). Since its foundation in 1978, Versace has incorporated classic Roman/Greek symbols such as the Greek medusa and the Greek key in its products (such as the clutch I showed earlier).

More recently, the Golden Dawn has chosen the Greek key as their logo. The Greek key can be considered a symbol of Greek nationalist pride in a certain way, since it kind of symbolises the Ancient Greek empire and its influence at that time, acting almost as the logo of a famous company.

Contrary to the swastika (which was already been used by ancient Asian and European civilisations, thousands of years before Hitler was born), most people don't recognise a Greek key when they see one, and they don't associate it with a racist, far-right Greek group. However, shouldn't they feel equally offended if they see someone waving a flag with a swastika or with a Greek key? Both the German Nazi party and the Greek Golden Dawn share a lot of their ideology.

Waving a Golden Dawn flag, a Nazi flag, a Communist flag, a EU flag, an LGBT flag or the Versace clutch, they are all the same, and do not constitute promotion of violence. They are just objects and symbols, and do not promote violence against any group of people. Burning a Golden Dawn flag, a Nazi flag, a Communist flag, a EU flag, an LGBT flag or the Versace clutch, they are all the same as well.

I wasn't raised a Catholic, and I'm not Catholic, am I not allowed to make that joke as well?
Of course, otherwise we'd have to make laws regulating speech for Catholics and non-Catholics individually.

Let's say they outlaw abortion in any cases, no exceptions (even I am against that, but let's just consider it). Would it be promoting hatred if I participated in a rally contesting that decision? Would it be promoting hatred if I participated in a rally supporting that decision?
No and no. Promoting abortion is not promoting violence against anti-abortion groups, and promoting anti-abortion laws is not promoting violence against pro-abortion groups.

Hmm, nope. ISIS terrorists consider themselves to be holy warriors who believe in a specific ideology (Islamist extremism) that is tied to a specific religion: Islam (even though Obama refuses to call them "Islamic").

Either way, if you don't want to use the ISIS example, we can use other groups. Am I promoting hatred if I label Hezbollah, Boko Haram or PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) terrorist organisations?
I can call BLM a terrorist organisation based on actual evidence that they are a terrorist organisation, and that is not promoting violence, that's just stating a fact. I can call BLM a terrorist organisation based on no evidence whatsoever, and that is not promoting violence, that's just being dumb. Same with labelling Hezbollah, Boko Haram or PKK terrorist organisations: I'm not promoting violence against their supporters, I'm just stating a fact.

What if I said the terrorist was a Trump supporter? Or a Hillary supporter? Or a white, heterosexual, cisgender, male?
Claiming that a terrorist is a Muslim/Trump supporter/Hillary supporter/white, heterosexual, cisgender male, based on no evidence and before actual evidence that he is in fact a Muslim (or any other kind of thing) is revealed is not promoting violence, I'd say it's just spreading a rumour. I'm not sure if you consider calling someone a Muslim an insult, though (like, instead of saying "you're an idiot", saying "you're a Muslim").


So, I am a biological man (XY):
- If I say men are smarter than women, it is hate speech.
- If I say women are smarter than men, it is not hate speech.

Imagine I was a biological female (XX):
- If I said men are smarter than women, it would not be hate speech.
- If I said women are smarter than men, it would be hate speech.

Are you in agreement with this?
I actually don't believe you are in agreement with this, Matt, I think you're a good lad and you were just a bit confused when you wrote what you wrote about this topic.

Obviously, hate speech is always hate speech, whether you are a man, a woman or anything else, otherwise we'd have to make different laws regulating speech for each of the 71 genders Facebook now considers to be real.

Saying men and smarter than woman is like saying Ferrari is better than Porsche: Ferrari fans will agree, Porsche fans will disagree. They are opinions, not promotion of hatred or violence.


You didn't consider the caricatures of Mohammad or Jesus hate speech. I'm not sure what PlasmaHam had in mind when he asked this, but I'd say he meant only dressing as a Native American for a festivity, no caricature or mocking in any way, just dressing as one.

Also, people have done hundreds of Trump caricatures in rallies against him and his campaign, do you consider that promoting hatred?

Trump and the Statue of Liberty in sexual positions.

The Statue of Liberty holding Trump's head, and saying "America, resist!"

Trump disguised as an elephant.
None of these caricatures (including Mohammad caricatures, Jesus caricatures or Native American caricatures) are promoting violence.

You didn't answer this question: am I promoting hatred against black people if I decide to wear dreadlocks? (I'm a white male, btw)
Obviously not.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 27th, 2017, 02:04 PM
PlasmaHam my point is that you want to "enlighten" mattsmith48 about things you are guilty yourself: bias, double standards, hypocrisy and close mindedness.

I want your point regarding this specific example:
Why did you complain about Nazi witch hunts in another thread? People calling out others for what they are isn't that free speech?
Why is this relevant here, and what is your point with this?

SethfromMI
August 27th, 2017, 02:27 PM
SethfromMI you seem to forget that this is about hate speech, the only thing scientist would stop religious people from doing is using their religious text as an excuse to hate on gays and women. Other religious believes that have been disproven by science like that the universe was created 5,000 years ago and that humans lived with dinosaurs people would still be allowed to believe that.


PlasmaHam when you want to use scientific studies to ''prove'' your bullshit, make sure it wasn't debunked.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beware-bogus-theories-of-sexual-orientation/

so if a Christian says I think same sex sexual relationships are an abomination they can automatically be fined or jailed because it is "hate speech" because science dictates what can and what cannot be said based on facts.

the Nazi scientists determined Jews were less than human by science and to speak out against the Nazi party often meant you found your own way into a concentration camp. again, I am not accusing you of going to that extreme for I do not think you have any such intentions of any of the sort whatsoever. but in your world where free speech is limited to "the truth" and all truth is dictated by what "science proves" if science decides to prove that tomorrow, there is not a thing you or anyone else can do about it under the system you are proposing.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 27th, 2017, 04:55 PM
mattsmith48, since you never responded to my posts, I'll respond for you. For this post I'll try to do my best MattSmith impression (minus the insults.)

To be clear, you are saying that it should be a criminal offense to publicly disagree with imaginary gender ideology
Yes, I, MattSmith48, was saying that. However, I realize now that valuing someone's snowflake feelings over free speech is the wrong thing to do. It is no better than the authoritarian speech policies of Nazi Germany

and/or to disagree with the slaughter of babies?
Yes, I again said that. I realize what I said was wrong. Abortion is a very controversial issue, to essentially enforce a belief upon that topic upon the populace is morally wrong. Controversial issues should be figured out through open debate and discussion, not through government authoritarianism.

Hey, doesn't the Bible promote hatred towards LGBT+ lifestyles? Should we ban that too?
The Bible does promote hatred of LGBT+ lifestyles, but that doesn't mean that we should value LGBT+ people's feelings and comforts over those of Christians. One could easily argue that LGBT+ material is hateful of Christian lifestyles. Either way, people have a natural right to express different issues upon moral issues. Just like we liberals express hatreds of Christians by calling them bigoted closed-minded followers of a rage-monster god, Christians should also be able to express disapproval in the LGBT+ lifestyle. To ban religious material and opinions because it goes against those of those in power is no better than the policies of the genocidal Mao.
And doesn't the Israeli flag promote hatred against the Palestinian people? Why don't we ban this too?
Using my previous opinion on hate speech, yes it should be banned as it promotes the evil ideology of Zionism. However, I realized that this is just an issue of snowflakes getting overly offended over innocent items. Jewish-Palestinian relations are a controversial issue, and a forced government opinion upon it is no better that the anti-semetic speech controls of Saudi Arabia. I am ashamed I thought of this.

Hey? Doesn't burning the LGBT+ flag promote hatred of LGBTTQQIAAP peoples? Why don't we ban rainbow flag burnings too?
I do think that burning the LGBT+ flag symbolizes hatred against LGBT+ peoples. However, I realized I was a hypocrite since I supported the right to burn the American flag, which can be seen as promoting hatred towards the millions of patriotic Americans. To say that one ideology is the government's "sacred cow" and all others are ripe for the taking, is wrong and I am ashamed I thought of this.

I'm curious as to why you are permitting mocking and dissing of religion in your proposed "Hate Speech" system, but even questioning or civilly disagreeing with gender ideology or trans-genderism is suddenly a no-no. Mind elaborating on how you aren't bias here?
Yes, I am clearly guilty of bias, as shown in your example. Previously I assumed that government officials were unbiased, and such would be able to perfectly and fairly enforce hate speech laws. However, since then I have "woked" to the truth, that Big Government bureaucrats are the most hypocritical and radical of all peoples, and giving them the power to define what can and can't be said will only result in authoritarianism. And as much as I wish for an SJW dictatorship, I know that is wrong, and I am ashamed I said such.

Man, you are funny. You actually believe that people have more rights to use the wrong bathroom than to disagree with the existence of infinite genders? Are you just trolling us now?
I don't know what I was saying there. I was absolutely wrong when I said that. People certainly have more rights to free speech than they do to using the wrong bathroom. I was a hypocrite by claiming that we should allow transgender people to use the other bathroom because of their "rights" but then proceed to bash one of the most sacred rights of humanity.
So, is saying that a biological sex change is impossible and that a trans-man isn't truly a male, is that also hate speech? It is a scientific fact that such is impossible.
I would say yes, but I realized I was being a hypocrite. I have now realized that basing allowed speech upon "facts" leave too much to interpretation, and can be easily abused by those who pretend facts exist when they don't. I am ashamed I thought otherwise

Also, can you truly admit that you've ever said that Catholic pedophile "joke" without intending it too offend? Since you justify that joke with "facts" can I also make jokes about the tranny suicide rate and people getting dumber due to weed smoking (both are statistical facts, or at least well accepted theories)

My mediocre and out-dated Catholic pedophile joke was never meant to be innocent, but to purposely offend the religious and traditional. Using my logic though, I would have to admit that tranny suicide jokes and dumb marijuana smokers jokes is allowed. However, I have 'woke and realized that jokes and who can say them should not be defined by the state, that is no better than the authoritarian speech policies of Canada.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2017, 08:16 PM
so if a Christian says I think same sex sexual relationships are an abomination they can automatically be fined or jailed because it is "hate speech" because science dictates what can and what cannot be said based on facts.

He's allowed to think it and believe it, he just can't publicly say it or promote it or anything like that no matter if he's a priest, a regular church goer, or just a closeted homosexual using it to try to hide his true sexual orientation.

the Nazi scientists determined Jews were less than human by science and to speak out against the Nazi party often meant you found your own way into a concentration camp. again, I am not accusing you of going to that extreme for I do not think you have any such intentions of any of the sort whatsoever. but in your world where free speech is limited to "the truth" and all truth is dictated by what "science proves" if science decides to prove that tomorrow, there is not a thing you or anyone else can do about it under the system you are proposing.

What the Nazis were saying about the Jews to make them look as inferior in the eyes of the general public, we now know that's not true about the Jews or any other group you could think off.

SethfromMI
August 27th, 2017, 08:36 PM
He's allowed to think it and believe it, he just can't publicly say it or promote it or anything like that no matter if he's a priest, a regular church goer, or just a closeted homosexual using it to try to hide his true sexual orientation.



What the Nazis were saying about the Jews to make them look as inferior in the eyes of the general public, we now know that's not true about the Jews or any other group you could think off.

You don't get the Nazi example. And again, I emphasize I am not calling you a Nazi because I know you're not in any way, shape or form. Those in power begin by taking away some free speech. and then they take away more. and more. and more. and more. until there may not even be the illusion of free speech left.

you don't think those in power aren't going to abuse determining what is true or what is not if that is the basis for determining what they can say and do? The Nazis had the power in Germany and many of the other surrounding countries. They didn't just limit the rights of the Jews, they limited the rights of all people. they began determining what was "true" and anyone who disagreed was thrown into concentration camps. most Germans/many Europeans were quiet, obviously afraid of what might happen if they dare speak openly. you keep saying science will be the basis, science will be the basis.

no it won't. you might want science to be the basis. you might think science being the basis will have noble intentions and be impartial, but when you begin to take rights away from people, those in power do not stop.

once more, science should NEVER force someone form being able to freely proclaim their religious beliefs which is what your most certainly saying science has the right to do.

you're ideology is extremely dangerous. Nazi Germany is not the only example which exists which shows what happens when those in power who are allowed to determine what is true and are allowed to start taking rights away from the people. you say science is what will determine it. and who will enforce it. the wind? the sun? a physics book? no, people. and those same people who are in charge will determine what the truth is to fit their goals and agenda. or those who are in charge of the scientists will make sure science supports the agenda of those in charge.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 27th, 2017, 08:45 PM
This hate speech law seems to have so many issues. So many violations of basic rights, oppression of opinion, and a obvious slippery slope towards dictatorship. Now I have an idea to solve all these issues. This may be controversial, but I think it would work. So, instead of dictating what can and can't be said by people, we instead let them express their own opinion without fear of censorship? I know, that is extremely controversial, and I am sure there will be massive die-offs of SJW snowflakes, but I think it is our best bet. I'm not 100% sure on that though, if we allow people to speak contrary opinions, then we may face contrary opinions, and, I don't want to think about, even get our feelings hurt!:eek: It may be too much to bare, too many people will say things we don't like! We could all experience micro-aggressions! But I think it is also the morally right thing to do, so we probably should just do it.

SethfromMI
August 27th, 2017, 08:50 PM
This hate speech law seems to have so many issues. So many violations of basic rights, oppression of opinion, and a obvious slippery slope towards dictatorship. Now I have an idea to solve all these issues. This may be controversial, but I think it would work. So, instead of dictating what can and can't be said by people, we instead let them express their own opinion without fear of censorship? I know, that is extremely controversial, and I am sure there will be massive die-offs of SJW snowflakes, but I think it is our best bet. I'm not 100% sure on that though, if we allow people to speak contrary opinions, then we may face contrary opinions, and, I don't want to think about, even get our feelings hurt!:eek: It may be too much to bare, too many people will say things we don't like! We could all experience micro-aggressions! But I think it is also the morally right thing to do, so we probably should just do it.

No free speech for you! No free speech for anyone! Long live the oppression!

https://memegenerator.net/instance/72398549/soup-nazi-2-no-free-speech-for-you-come-back-when-you-agree-with-me-next

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2017, 09:04 PM
You don't get the Nazi example. And again, I emphasize I am not calling you a Nazi because I know you're not in any way, shape or form. Those in power begin by taking away some free speech. and then they take away more. and more. and more. and more. until there may not even be the illusion of free speech left.

you don't think those in power aren't going to abuse determining what is true or what is not if that is the basis for determining what they can say and do? The Nazis had the power in Germany and many of the other surrounding countries. They didn't just limit the rights of the Jews, they limited the rights of all people. they began determining what was "true" and anyone who disagreed was thrown into concentration camps. most Germans/many Europeans were quiet, obviously afraid of what might happen if they dare speak openly. you keep saying science will be the basis, science will be the basis.

no it won't. you might want science to be the basis. you might think science being the basis will have noble intentions and be impartial, but when you begin to take rights away from people, those in power do not stop.

once more, science should NEVER force someone form being able to freely proclaim their religious beliefs which is what your most certainly saying science has the right to do.

you're ideology is extremely dangerous. Nazi Germany is not the only example which exists which shows what happens when those in power who are allowed to determine what is true and are allowed to start taking rights away from the people. you say science is what will determine it. and who will enforce it. the wind? the sun? a physics book? no, people. and those same people who are in charge will determine what the truth is to fit their goals and agenda. or those who are in charge of the scientists will make sure science supports the agenda of those in charge.

You could change the way government works or the way elections are done to limit the power of the individual and party in charge. Also the anti-hate speech law would prevent anyone to do what the Nazis did, not to mention the already existing anti-discrimination laws. There is also that this kind of law would could lead to constitution issue and no matter which country you live in changing the constitution of that country is really hard and require a great majority of people to agree on any change. All of that put together I think would prevent a Nazi like party to get a false majority through a shitty electoral system and use this law to push for their fascist agenda.

SethfromMI
August 27th, 2017, 09:12 PM
You could change the way government works or the way elections are done to limit the power of the individual and party in charge. Also the anti-hate speech law would prevent anyone to do what the Nazis did, not to mention the already existing anti-discrimination laws. There is also that this kind of law would could lead to constitution issue and no matter which country you live in changing the constitution of that country is really hard and require a great majority of people to agree on any change. All of that put together I think would prevent a Nazi like party to get a false majority through a shitty electoral system and use this law to push for their fascist agenda.

yea because Dictators willingly give up more and more power once you have given it to them. and no the law doesn't because the law is stripping away rights that people already has if it disagrees with science. you created a system where "science" (but again a chemistry text book does not force people to obey laws or punishes them when they break them) determines all truth, and anyone who speaks out contrary to that truth can be punished. your system doesn't give people more rights, it strips people of rights. and if you think people have more freedom by being stripped of your rights then I am just at a loss of words. someone will be in control and when you willingly begin to take away a persons right to speak freely, those in control WILL take advantage of it. you think Hitler would have said oh some law on some piece of paper is stopping me from taking power. he stripped the people of their rights to the point any opposition or contrary view they held openly could mean their very death. you do not get rights by taking away rights. you do not have more freedom by being stripped of it. that is not the way it works.

elmoc
August 28th, 2017, 10:21 AM
Interesting exchange of opinions in this thread!

IMO, there is an absolute right to free speech in our constitution. As noted above, Justice Anthony Kennedy offered clarification in his writings. I am not defending hate speech or hurtful statements of any kind, but free speech is an essential part of the rights of everyone in the USA.

When words transition into violence there is a line crossed & criminal charges are appropriate.

mattsmith48
August 28th, 2017, 11:53 AM
yea because Dictators willingly give up more and more power once you have given it to them.

This is why you change the electoral system before the old system creates a dictatorship, and before passing this law.

and no the law doesn't because the law is stripping away rights that people already has if it disagrees with science. you created a system where "science" (but again a chemistry text book does not force people to obey laws or punishes them when they break them) determines all truth, and anyone who speaks out contrary to that truth can be punished.

Only if they to promote hatred towards a certain group. You keep forgetting that kinda important part.

Babs
August 28th, 2017, 02:13 PM
Only if they to promote hatred towards a certain group. You keep forgetting that kinda important part.

Why is it worth putting people into our judicial system though? What substantial harm does it do? Like, yeah, senseless hatred is bad etc. There are a lot of bad people out there. But rather than strip people of their rights, there should be discussion and discourse, and people should be encouraged to be thinkers rather than to follow an ideology. If pragmatism is encouraged, humanity will find its way to what is right. Bad things will always happen but as a mass we can, have, and will move past senseless ideas.

The world may seem turbulent now, but we've worked/are working our way out of barbaric systems such as feudalism, imperialism, institutions such as slavery, etc. I think it's undeniable that big picture-wise the world is becoming more unified. I have more faith in humanity than to believe that suppression is the answer.

SethfromMI
August 28th, 2017, 06:49 PM
This is why you change the electoral system before the old system creates a dictatorship, and before passing this law.



Only if they to promote hatred towards a certain group. You keep forgetting that kinda important part.

but your taking away the rights of religious people from openly saying what they believe. so you're system is horrible. and you don't realize a "new electoral system" will not stop a dictator from getting more and more power once you given those in charge the power to take away rights from their people.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 28th, 2017, 08:44 PM
Dictatorships always rise to power this way. They convince the people to give up one freedom for the "better good", so the people do. They convince the people to give more power to the government for the good of society, and the people, assuming an altruistic leader who will fix society's problems, gladly go along with it. Over time this cycle repeats, and every time it gets easier and easier for the people to give up those rights. Even if the government was truly altruistic in its original promises, over time history has shown us that all governments, democratic or not, will be corrupted with power when people starts giving the government power. And once the people realize that the government is corrupted, it would be too late, as they already gave up their rights to do anything about it. Not very many people realize that Hitler was elected in a fair, democratic election. And when he started taking away rights, like free speech and free-markets he did it with the population's blessing, as they truly believed he was altruistic with his promises, and in some ways he was. Eventually the electoral system was changed, but instead of keeping the possibly of a dictatorship away, it resulted in a guaranteed and indefinite dictatorship the likes of which the world has never seen. So the next time you want to believe that democratic systems, no matter how many rights are given up by the people, are immune to the corrupting influence of power, just remember Hitler.

SethfromMI
August 28th, 2017, 10:44 PM
Dictatorships always rise to power this way. They convince the people to give up one freedom for the "better good", so the people do. They convince the people to give more power to the government for the good of society, and the people, assuming an altruistic leader who will fix society's problems, gladly go along with it. Over time this cycle repeats, and every time it gets easier and easier for the people to give up those rights. Even if the government was truly altruistic in its original promises, over time history has shown us that all governments, democratic or not, will be corrupted with power when people starts giving the government power. And once the people realize that the government is corrupted, it would be too late, as they already gave up their rights to do anything about it. Not very many people realize that Hitler was elected in a fair, democratic election. And when he started taking away rights, like free speech and free-markets he did it with the population's blessing, as they truly believed he was altruistic with his promises, and in some ways he was. Eventually the electoral system was changed, but instead of keeping the possibly of a dictatorship away, it resulted in a guaranteed and indefinite dictatorship the likes of which the world has never seen. So the next time you want to believe that democratic systems, no matter how many rights are given up by the people, are immune to the corrupting influence of power, just remember Hitler.

Thank you for explaining what I was trying to explain in a much stronger and effective way

mattsmith48
August 29th, 2017, 11:55 AM
Why is it worth putting people into our judicial system though? What substantial harm does it do? Like, yeah, senseless hatred is bad etc. There are a lot of bad people out there. But rather than strip people of their rights, there should be discussion and discourse, and people should be encouraged to be thinkers rather than to follow an ideology. If pragmatism is encouraged, humanity will find its way to what is right. Bad things will always happen but as a mass we can, have, and will move past senseless ideas.

The world may seem turbulent now, but we've worked/are working our way out of barbaric systems such as feudalism, imperialism, institutions such as slavery, etc. I think it's undeniable that big picture-wise the world is becoming more unified. I have more faith in humanity than to believe that suppression is the answer.

No matter how much we advance as a society, we will always have people ready to shout hate and people ready to listen and have that hate put in their head and do something crazy.

but your taking away the rights of religious people from openly saying what they believe. so you're system is horrible. and you don't realize a "new electoral system" will not stop a dictator from getting more and more power once you given those in charge the power to take away rights from their people.

Only the hateful stuff from the religions. If you want to openly say you believe in the virgin birth or Noah's ark you are free and have full rights to do so. About the dictatorship I already explained it how to prevent it you are just coming up with different ways to ask the same question.

Babs
August 29th, 2017, 12:04 PM
No matter how much we advance as a society, we will always have people ready to shout hate and people ready to listen and have that hate put in their head and do something crazy.



so what difference does it make whether or not someone is "allowed" to proclaim their hatred of a certain group? circling back to my spiel on using one's thinker.

mattsmith48
August 29th, 2017, 12:18 PM
so what difference does it make whether or not someone is "allowed" to proclaim their hatred of a certain group? circling back to my spiel on using one's thinker.


Preventing people from getting hateful crazy ideas into their head and act on them.

Babs
August 29th, 2017, 12:35 PM
Preventing people from getting hateful crazy ideas into their head and act on them.

Yeah I understand that, crazy people aren't just going to disappear though. Normal functional people don't go on murder sprees because they heard hate speech and thought to themselves, "i like this guy, this is good stuff." They just don't, the issue is much deeper than that.

You keep reiterating the same point of "no hate speech! nope!" but you haven't given a proper argument as to why or how changing the entire system would yield rewarding results. Not to mention the expenditure of enforcing such a law.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 29th, 2017, 02:13 PM
Tbh, this debate has gone downhill really quickly. Y'all aren't going to get a satisfactory answer from MattSmith, because he doesn't have any satisfactory answer. He keeps jumping around when asked how his system wouldn't lead to a dictatorship, with a broad response of "changing the electoral system" without any evidence that a change would prevent a dictatorship, nor has given use any examples on what kinds of electoral system will be entirely immune to a dictatorship.

He has also failed to give any satisfactory answer to what should be banned. He claims anything that promotes hatred should be banned, but his responses indicate an unfairness and bias in how this system would be implemented. He has also given no satisfactory answer as to why he seems to be promoting certain ideologies and opinions in his system (like LGBT+ and pro-choice) while banning and restricting others (like religion and anti-abortion).

And of course, he hasn't answered the two biggest we all have. What is the morality of the government enforcing certain opinions and idealogies upon the populace, and what benefit will come from this that would outweigh the price of lost freedoms? I have yet to see any satisfactory answers to any of these, and I doubt I will. Babs SethfromMI y'all aren't going to get any answers to your questions here, you might as well just ignore him and go on your way.

NewLeafsFan
August 31st, 2017, 12:21 PM
Well, we basically live in a society where the rules on speech change depending on where we are. If your in your own house you can say whatever you want. When you go to work and school you could be fired or dealt with accordingly. And to me that sounds fair.

Jthompson
September 3rd, 2017, 09:38 AM
!. There is plenty reason to mess around with the Constitution. That's how women got the right to vote, black people were freed from slavery, etc etc. The founding fathers literally wrote in an Elastic Clause because they KNEW that the constitution would have to be adjusted as time went on. They themselves wouldn't be "originalists."

2. Freedom of speech is regulated by where it's said, versus what's being said. Restrictions of Freedom of Speech have nothing to do what's being said, only where. So like, in my house, or in a meeting, I can say anything and everything i want about how I might hate a certain group of people. But me marching into a congregation of those people, and saying that to them, would be classified as hate speech. There's your restriction.

Similarly, any type of speech is illegal if it incites violence.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 3rd, 2017, 02:07 PM
!. There is plenty reason to mess around with the Constitution. That's how women got the right to vote, black people were freed from slavery, etc etc. The founding fathers literally wrote in an Elastic Clause because they KNEW that the constitution would have to be adjusted as time went on. They themselves wouldn't be "originalists."
The Elastic Clause does not allow for the modification of the Constitution. All it does is give Congress extra powers to pursue its duties as defined in the Constitution. Again, it does not change the Constitution, it only delegates power to Congress as seen necessary and proper. You have a bit of a point here, but you need to do more research.

Also, you might also want to look into what Originalism actually is. You would probably be surprised.

Freedom of speech is regulated by where it's said, versus what's being said. Restrictions of Freedom of Speech have nothing to do what's being said, only where. So like, in my house, or in a meeting, I can say anything and everything i want about how I might hate a certain group of people. But me marching into a congregation of those people, and saying that to them, would be classified as hate speech. There's your restriction.
That is what we are talking about. Freedom of speech should not be defined by where you say it or who you say it too. It should be applied universally and fairly among all individuals in all settings to all opinions.

Restrictions of Freedom of Speech have nothing to do what's being said, only where.
Restrictions on free speech don't work that way.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2017, 05:11 AM
2. Freedom of speech is regulated by where it's said, versus what's being said. Restrictions of Freedom of Speech have nothing to do what's being said, only where. So like, in my house, or in a meeting, I can say anything and everything i want about how I might hate a certain group of people. But me marching into a congregation of those people, and saying that to them, would be classified as hate speech. There's your restriction.
If you say something in your house alone and no one hears you, can it even be considered speech? Basically, would you be happy if governments passed a certain law saying "you can say this as long as no one hears you"? Also, if we regulate speech by the location where said speech is produced, how exactly would you define a "location"? By country, by culture, by geography? This is important because you'd have to make different laws regulating speech in each of those different locations.

Jthompson
September 5th, 2017, 08:24 AM
But it's already done. We don't say that you CANT say things in your house, or at a church. It's the fact that if someone walks in a church and screams hate speech, it is clearly inappropriate and wrong. A white nationalists can say whatever he wants. When and if he walks I to a black church and starts saying that...CLEARLY it's wrong. You cannot argue against my argument with the extreme "what if we regulate speech in a house" because that's not what we're talking about. That is a false equivluancy.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 5th, 2017, 09:15 AM
Just going to add something here before I leave for awhile.

But it's already done. We don't say that you CANT say things in your house, or at a church. It's the fact that if someone walks in a church and screams hate speech, it is clearly inappropriate and wrong. A white nationalists can say whatever he wants. When and if he walks I to a black church and starts saying that...CLEARLY it's wrong. You cannot argue against my argument with the extreme "what if we regulate speech in a house" because that's not what we're talking about. That is a false equivluancy.

I don't understand your logic here. If you are saying that morally that is wrong, then I'll agree with you. However, you haven't presented any reasons why the government should step in and enforce that form of morality.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/student-probed-uni-bosses-hate-11113823

This is what I think when it comes to hate speech laws. You hear of stuff like this coming all the time from Europe, the mainstream-media just doesn't like to publish it.

Living For Love
September 5th, 2017, 10:39 AM
But it's already done. We don't say that you CANT say things in your house, or at a church. It's the fact that if someone walks in a church and screams hate speech, it is clearly inappropriate and wrong. A white nationalists can say whatever he wants. When and if he walks I to a black church and starts saying that...CLEARLY it's wrong. You cannot argue against my argument with the extreme "what if we regulate speech in a house" because that's not what we're talking about. That is a false equivluancy.
What about saying that in a museum, in a hospital, in a park, in a bank, in a clothes shop? I agree it's inappropriate and wrong, I just don't agree with making it illegal.

Jthompson
September 5th, 2017, 10:58 AM
Just going to add something here before I leave for awhile.



I don't understand your logic here. If you are saying that morally that is wrong, then I'll agree with you. However, you haven't presented any reasons why the government should step in and enforce that form of morality.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/student-probed-uni-bosses-hate-11113823

This is what I think when it comes to hate speech laws. You hear of stuff like this coming all the time from Europe, the mainstream-media just doesn't like to publish it.


The United States have made laws against morality for its whole existence. They believed it was morally wrong to own people. Morally wrong for women not to vote. We have created moral decisions all the time. So to say it's wrong for the federal government to enforce morality goes against what the country has been built and developed on.

What about saying that in a museum, in a hospital, in a park, in a bank, in a clothes shop? I agree it's inappropriate and wrong, I just don't agree with making it illegal.



Bro its indecent for me to walk around naked a museum. It's indecent for me to should fire in a movie theater. Rules against "decency" and laws against these hints already exist. Why not then against certain speech in certain establishments? That makes perfect sense

Posts merged. Please edit your post next time. ~Jinglebottom

Living For Love
September 5th, 2017, 04:50 PM
Bro its indecent for me to walk around naked a museum. It's indecent for me to should fire in a movie theater. Rules against "decency" and laws against these hints already exist. Why not then against certain speech in certain establishments? That makes perfect sense
Indecent exposure is a totally different thing. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor which falls under forbidden speech if proven that the intention of the person was to incite imminent lawlessness. I'm talking about hate speech here. You claim that there should be restrictions of free speech so that, for instance, a white supremacist would be forbidden of shouting racial slurs in a church filled with black people. I asked you if you were in favour of those same restrictions if they happened in a museum, a theatre, a bank, or any public building, really. What about Antifa supporters shouting slurs at a white supremacist rally? Or KKK supporters shouting slurs at an Antifa rally? You claim that freedom of speech is regulated according to the location where certain speech is produced, but you haven't explained which places would be protected by those regulations and why.

DoodleSnap
September 20th, 2017, 07:22 PM
I ultimately believe that no speech should be outlawed, ever. It's a difficult one, when you see people rallying for genocide and hatred, etc (Islamism, Neo-Nazism, etc...), but freedom of speech is a basic tenet of free society, and a slippery-slope is easy to achieve.