US Elections 2016

[Gromnir]

as regulars o' this board is aware, Gromnir is a bit o' a free speech crusader.  am always surprised by how different europeans view free speech than does Americans.  seems axiomatic to us that the only speech that actual needs protection is that speech which offends. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

is a bit over-simple.

 

*shrug*

 

regardless, it doesn't matter if you believe that hate speech should be prohibited.  the fact is that hate speech that does not rise to the level o' chaplinsky fighting words (google it) is protected by the First Amendment. as such, US lawmakers, even with best of intentions, cannot abridge such speech without changing the First Amendment.  

 

...

 

even so, am very disappointed in many o' our fellow Americans.  just because some yutz has the right to spew hate does not mean that citizens should stay silent and allow the bigots to spew his poison unopposed.  for Gromnir, the right to free speech is accompanied by a duty not only to defend the offensive speaker's right to express himself but also to respond and educate.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." - J Brandeis (whitney v. ca)

 

believe that the US takes free speech too far? okie dokie.  we disagree, but that don't change the fact US free speech is different from most al o' europe and the only way to change such freedom is to change the Constitution.  am always surprised that legislators, executives and judges need be reminded o' that fact.

 

oh, and once again, the only speech that requires Constitutional protection is speech which tends to offend.  nowadays most o' us is justifiably offended by nazis in skokie and racists in st. paul, but in the 1930s and 40s, the naacp and communists woulda' been viewed as similarly offensive by many/most Americans. the Founders were wise enough to realize that the government gots no business deciding the worth o' the content o' the speaker's message.

 

"one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." J Harlan

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

regardless, it doesn't matter if you believe that hate speech should be prohibited.  the fact is that hate speech that does not rise to the level o' chaplinsky fighting words (google it) is protected by the First Amendment. as such, US lawmakers, even with best of intentions, cannot abridge such speech without changing the First Amendment.  

 

That's absolutely fine. As somebody who isn't even up-to-date regarding the details of his own country's Constitution, much less the American one, I wasn't objecting to the idea that "the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech" is a flat-out wrong (as in, factually so) position for a Supreme Court judge to take.

 

However, I did find GD's rather panicked "What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is." an extremely peculiar statement, given the vast historical precedent for countries that somehow managed to draw up hate speech laws that happen to clearly delineate what constitutes as such, and not serve as basis for the arbitrary punishment of People The Government Does Not Like.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

However, I did find GD's rather panicked "What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is." an extremely peculiar statement, given the vast historical precedent for countries that somehow managed to draw up hate speech laws that happen to clearly delineate what constitutes as such, and not serve as basis for the arbitrary punishment of People The Government Does Not Like.

 

Let's set aside for a moment the irreversible damage to the country if the Constitution were to be marginalized or outright set aside to the point that it's protections were moot. If the US were to adopt a law that allows criminal punishments for just saying something it does not necessarily follow that law will be twisted into "arbitrary punishment of people the government does not like". But if that were to happen step 1 is passing the law. Let's not take step 1 and you never have to worry about the rest.

 

Now the freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a theater or incite a riot and tell them to lynch that Muslim looking guy down the street. There are limits. But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. The freedom to speak your mind does not mean anyone else has to listen to you or agree with you. But they do NOT get to stop you!

 

The left would have us believe people are only opposed to Obama's politics because he's black. Is it such a stretch to think that if the powers that be presume speech against the president is rooted in racism that political opposition BECOMES hate speech? I could see that happening very easily.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Elerond]

 

 

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

 

Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will:

 

 

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog.%5B34%5D%5B35%5D

On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to stand for trial on charges of ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges were raised on the basis of remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on Halla-aho's blog in 2008. Here, he wrote that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, making reference to Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, and that Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia.%5B36%5D In another text, he asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.%5B31%5D The text was originally intended as a response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaperKaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.%5B37%5D

On 8 September 2009, the District Court convicted Halla-aho of disturbing religious worship, and ordered him to pay a fine of 330 euros.%5B31%5D The charge of ethnic agitation was dismissed. In October 2010 the Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court's conviction.%5B38%5D Both the prosecutor and Halla-aho appealed the case to the Supreme Court.%5B39%5D The Supreme Court granted a leave to appeal in May 2011.%5B40%5D In a sentence given on the 8 of June 2012, the Supreme Court found Halla-aho guilty of both disturbing religious worship and of ethnic agitation and increased his fines accordingly to 400 euros.%5B31%5D%5B41%5D%5B42%5D 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho

 

As for my opinion about it, my stance is clear:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU

 

 

 

 

 

I would say that Wikipedia article gives bit too simplified version about said case.

 

Supreme Court gives rational explanations for their judgement in this case. Although if you think that Freedom of Speech should matter more than other constitutional rights then case may feel like miscarriage of justice.

http://finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/kko/kko/2012/20120058 (Finnish and Swedish version only, google translate may give somewhat readable version from Swedish version, if somebody is interested by some miracle)

Edited February 17, 2016 by Elerond

[aluminiumtrioxid]

But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. 

 

On one hand, I can empathize with that.

 

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 

The left would have us believe people are only opposed to Obama's politics because he's black. Is it such a stretch to think that if the powers that be presume speech against the president is rooted in racism that political opposition BECOMES hate speech? I could see that happening very easily.

 

To be fair, I'm pretty sure you could also see the army storming your place of residence and try to pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers at the orders of the government at the first opportunity said governments gets to enact such orders, so I'm not sure how well your nightmare scenarios stand the test of realism 

[Guard Dog]

 

But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. 

 

On one hand, I can empathize with that.

 

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 

The left would have us believe people are only opposed to Obama's politics because he's black. Is it such a stretch to think that if the powers that be presume speech against the president is rooted in racism that political opposition BECOMES hate speech? I could see that happening very easily.

 

To be fair, I'm pretty sure you could also see the army storming your place of residence and try to pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers at the orders of the government at the first opportunity said governments gets to enact such orders, so I'm not sure how well your nightmare scenarios stand the test of realism 

 

  Be prepared for anything and you'll never be surprised by anything. Besides Senator Dian Feinstein from California has said she'd like to do that very thing.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So what do you folks think of Srinivasan? He isnt exactly a liberal choice. He would seem to be the best of the moderate candidates available. I am not convinced Obama will throw out a liberal choice just to be rejected. It would seem to be a waste of time for him.

Moderate or liberal, there's no way Obola will appoint anyone who won't vote with the liberal block on controversial decisions, giving them at least a 5-4 majority. Which means what's left of the Constitution is gone. Second amendment, probably first amendment, no limits on presidential power, allowing one man rule by decree.

 

Obola caught on his own hypocrisy: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/02/17/reporter-gets-obama-admit-broken-judicial-nomination-process-damn-fault-video/

 

Btw, ever classy, -er- I mean a punk, Obola will not go to Scalia's funeral.

 

Back to the election, more about the rise of Trump : http://theweek.com/articles/605312/conservatives-have-failed-donald-trumps-supporters Love this sentence:

It is not enough to say, "Stop bothering us with your economic problems, and be more virtuous; we're too busy addressing the complicated problems of our rich patrons, and using the levers of the state to make it easier for them to invest in foreign work forces instead of the whiny entitled American worker."

[Gromnir]

 

But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. 

 

On one hand, I can empathize with that.

 

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 

are you sure you wanna use Germany as an example?  am thinking gd gots some pretty compelling reasons to fear German examples o' suppression o' opinion.

 

*shrugs*

 

european nations is far more homogenous than the US-- different problems.  the US would benefit, in many ways, from having a population that were approaching the ethnic and cultural homogeneity o' germany or finland,  but that ain't possible... not w/o a nightmarish and orwellian dystopia.  

 

conversely, a major issue facing the candidates this election is the rather extreme wealth inequality in the US. the disappearing middle class, unlike nazis in skokie, is a real problem.  would be nice if Justices, legislators and executives would leave the freaking Bill of Rights alone, and fix some real problems.  leave the blues brothers to handle first amendment quandaries? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps Gromnir would not prefer to live in Germany. we spent a fair amount o' time living in europe, and it were a kinda eye-opener.  racism and bigotry gets much press here in the US, but am gonna assure you that we never were allowed to forget that we is a minority while living/teaching in europe.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 

Britain is a far better example. Not just because of the multitudinous CCTV cameras and rulings like it being fine for the government to hack all your electronic devices but because the government has been pretty explicit that 1984 Britain was something to aim deliberately for. It's all under the aegis of protection from terrists or thinking of the children (though if there was one group I wouldn't want thinking of my children it would be Brit politicians) but Dave has been absolutely explicit about what the aim is:

 

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.

OK, so he didn't actually use the term 'wrongthink' but he might as well have.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. 

 

On one hand, I can empathize with that.

 

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 

 

are you sure you wanna use Germany as an example?  am thinking gd gots some pretty compelling reasons to fear German examples o' suppression o' opinion.

 

 

 

Touché 

 

Although I do feel compelled to point out that as far as I know, most of the laws regulating freedom of speech were coined after those examples, moreover: as a direct reaction to them. It's almost as if laws could be created and changed to adapt to the different challenges a society experiences in different times and circumstances?

 

 

 

conversely, a major issue facing the candidates this election is the rather extreme wealth inequality in the US. the disappearing middle class, unlike nazis in skokie, is a real problem.  would be nice if Justices, legislators and executives would leave the freaking Bill of Rights alone, and fix some real problems.  

 

 

 

Fair enough.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 
Britain is a far better example. (snip)

 

 

 

There is a reason I used the examples of Finland and Germany, not Britain.

[Volourn]

Hate speech is defined by whoever has the power. PERIOD. Only nazis ban speech. Are you pro nazi and hence anti freedom? But, I'm not surprised, most people are anti freedom. Most people are pro whatever they agree with. PERIOD.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Most people are pro whatever they agree with.

 

Tautologic statements are tautological.

[Rostere]

More articles:

How does Bill Kristol still have a job, even though he keeps making absurd predictions?
 
Facts to the rescue in the newly-awakened debate about Bush, 9/11, the Iraq War...
 

 

 

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 
Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

If you live in a country where expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid, ill informed, or downright mean spirited lands you in criminal trouble then it's already too late. You ARE in an Orwellian dystopia.

 

 
That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948.
 
Second, hate speech laws (the ones I'm acquainted with) are not that different from laws regarding threats of violence, defamation that I'm sure you have in the US. Basically, they have been used to conveniently prosecute people who make threats of violence and defame groups of people. For an example of what not constitutes hate speech you have the statement "homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on society". What hate speech does encompass however, is for example the use of Nazi symbols in certain ways. It's not illegal with swastikas in games, movies, historical re-enaction et.c., but if you were to publicly hand out leaflets with swastikas, pictures of Hitler and an invitation to join your political party, that would be considered hate speech (but ONLY if this is done in the public sphere, so if I gave you one such invitation in a meeting between friends, it would not be illegal). Maybe you view hate speech laws as a slippery slope, but that's not how things have turned out in reality. So while I understand your criticism, as it turns out, this type of legislation does not end up being used wrongly.
 
But it is funny that you should bring this up right now. There's a battle going on right now in the US on the right of individuals and organizations to make political boycotts. Now this is a little too Orwellian even for me. If you think this is crazy, it is already the law in France and in the UK. What would Scalia have said? I guess all that's left to do for American politicians is to make up some good argument for why not boycotting Cuba should be illegal, while boycotting Israel should be illegal.
 

 

 

Russian economy might be a wreck, but they managed to modernize their armed forces to be a real threat (and the nukes of course), and their foreign policy is at least partially working as witnessed by Assad's new found success and the fear Russia is inspiring in Eastern Europe.

I think you have misunderstood something about the situation in Eastern Europe here. None of the nations in Eastern Europe is any military threat to Russia, and so there is no need to intimidate anyone.

 

This is really strange logic. The country that's not a threat is exactly the country that's easiest to intimidate. Putin is known to shed bitter tears over the loss of the Soviet Empire.

No, this is strange "logic" from your side. If you intimidate someone, you do so to achieve some sort of goal. I'm sure you don't prowl around kindergartens with a knife just because you believe kids are easy to intimidate. Intimidation is not purpose in itself, on the contrary, you want to avoid it as often as you can. When you intimidate someone, you signal that you are their enemy. They are going to do everything in their power to protect themselves from you - in this case, join NATO.

 

Russia wants to intimidate Eastern European countries as little as possible. I have no idea how you can be such a complete ****ing stupid opinion on this matter, somewhere in the news you read there has been some kind of major malfunction. Secondly, you should listen to what I say here, because I can follow these sort of things first-hand while you only get the few driplets which trickle down to the English-speaking press.

 

As soon as anything occurs which can be even remotely interpreted as being a Russian provocation or attempt at intimidation, the entire machinery of pro-NATO opinionmakers jump into action and spin things beyond recognition, do their worst milking "threats" for what they are worth, exaggerating any seemingly intimidating statements or actions for maximum effect. They do this because they know it pays off. Whenever they get something intimidating to point their fingers at, support for NATO in opinion polls is going to increase. Meanwhile, the pro-Russian shills to their best on their side, instead trying to claim that nothing Russia ever does can be interpreted as some kind of intimidation, and that they would never, ever go to war with any of their European BFFs.

 

There is some serious flaw in your reasoning if in fact the interested parts are doing the opposite of what you think they would be doing.

 

You've got to understand, the people in Eastern European countries are torn between those who say "Russia will invade any day now! We must join NATO!" and those who say "Russia is a good trading partner, and will not make war on us or our allies". European trade with Russia has increased steadily the last 15 years or so, and up until Putin's Ukraine ****-up, the guys who said Russia was reliable were increasingly winning the debate. Now, it's the opposite. Russia basically made a check-mate on themselves with the Ukraine intervention, with regards to Eastern Europe. Even Lukashenko put out feelers towards the EU, which must be considered an extreme reversal of policies.
 

 

If Russian foreign policy was really working, they would have an Eastern Europe with increasingly pro-Russian opinions and Russian trade ties so deep that sanctions would be impossible to put in place.

That would require a miracle, not a foreign policy.

No. This would just require them to sit back and do nothing while the EU increases trade ties with them and the Eastern European fringe gravitates towards Moscow as the natural center of trade and commerce for that region. Which is exactly what was happening before the war in Ukraine. The sanctions are already very painful for some Eastern European countries, one can only imagine how things would have looked if they were put in place 10 years from now.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. 

 

On one hand, I can empathize with that.

 

On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA.

 

 

are you sure you wanna use Germany as an example?  am thinking gd gots some pretty compelling reasons to fear German examples o' suppression o' opinion.

 

 

 

Touché 

 

Although I do feel compelled to point out that as far as I know, most of the laws regulating freedom of speech were coined after those examples, moreover: as a direct reaction to them. It's almost as if laws could be created and changed to adapt to the different challenges a society experiences in different times and circumstances?

you can be certain that the fact that the post-war German peoples resorted suppression o' opinion to address some o' the evils o' the wartime german government is not lost on Gromnir.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps for rostere, and not thinking you is using "ironic" correct.  is hardly ironic that a jewish group, american or otherwise, would be offended by nazi propaganda.  is almost the complete opposite o' irony and the very reason we got a First Amendment? is not ironic at all that an offended group would be angered and overzealous.  the irony, that you missed, is that your jewish americans (cite please) were apparently successful in much of europe but not in America.

 

also, no. hate speech laws is not same as defamation and  assault.  there is no need for hate speech laws where they overlap with common law crimes.  use defamation if it is defamation.  duh. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

you can be certain that the fact that the post-war German peoples resorted suppression o' opinion to address some o' the evils o' the wartime german government is not lost on Gromnir.  

 

I don't know. I fail to see restrictions on freedom of speech as categorically, axiomatically evil. It's like...

 

You said it best:

 

just because some yutz has the right to spew hate does not mean that citizens should stay silent and allow the bigots to spew his poison unopposed.  for Gromnir, the right to free speech is accompanied by a duty not only to defend the offensive speaker's right to express himself but also to respond and educate.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." - J Brandeis (whitney v. ca)

 

...But sometimes it's not feasible, sometimes there are more pressing concerns for citizens than to argue with bigots in the faint hopes of convincing some passers-by that said bigot is wrong (because it's absolutely, 100% sure they won't convince the bigots themselves), and wouldn't it just be so very very nice to even out the playing field, since the effort required to educate, to do research, to factually refute wrongs is orders of magnitude higher than the effort required to spew thoughtless, hateful bile, and by the time any given point is addressed, the bigots have raised ten more?

[Gromnir]

if you have more pressing concerns, then is very difficult to claim that you have been injured to such a degree that the offending speaker should need have his rights abridged. and if the bigot has raised ten more concerns?  so what?  you have a similar opportunity to respond.  if your only reason for suppressing the 1930s naacp member or communist is because you is offended and inconvenienced, then am gonna chuckle to see you laughed outta Court.  

 

this is exact the kinda thing we speak o' when we note the difference between european and American pov.  use inconvenience o' the listener to abridge a Fundamental Right o' a speaker is unthinkable here in the United States... and thank goodness for that.

 

oh, and the playing field is level.

 

from the previous incarnation o' this thread:

 

"Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules."

 

r.a.v. v. city of st. paul

 

HA! Good Fun!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

if you have more pressing concerns, then is very difficult to claim that you have been injured to such a degree that the offending speaker should need have his rights abridged. and if the bigot has raised ten more concerns?  so what?  you have a similar opportunity to respond.  if your only reason for suppressing the 1930s naacp member or communist is because you is offended and inconvenienced, then am gonna chuckle to see you laughed outta Court.  

 

this is exact the kinda thing we speak o' when we note the difference between european and American pov.  use inconvenience o' the listener to abridge a Fundamental Right o' a speaker is unthinkable here in the United States... and thank goodness for that.

 

oh, and the playing field is level.

 

 

 

Okay, now I literally have no idea what perspective are we trying to tackle the issue from.

 

From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least).

 

From a philosophical POV, I see the issue as extremely malleable. Enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs is going to solve some problems (your society won't ever have the problem of silencing opinions diverging from those supporting the status quo) and run into some others (sometimes the status quo is really not that terrible to have, especially when the alternative is the ****ing nazis). In certain situations, it's better to have one, in others, the other.

 

 

Admittedly, this is my completely uneducated opinion and I'm looking forward to seeing the problem from new angles I haven't considered yet (but am sure people who earn their living actually dealing with the tricky issues of lawmaking have).

[Gromnir]

 

 

if you have more pressing concerns, then is very difficult to claim that you have been injured to such a degree that the offending speaker should need have his rights abridged. and if the bigot has raised ten more concerns?  so what?  you have a similar opportunity to respond.  if your only reason for suppressing the 1930s naacp member or communist is because you is offended and inconvenienced, then am gonna chuckle to see you laughed outta Court.  

 

this is exact the kinda thing we speak o' when we note the difference between european and American pov.  use inconvenience o' the listener to abridge a Fundamental Right o' a speaker is unthinkable here in the United States... and thank goodness for that.

 

oh, and the playing field is level.

 

 

 

Okay, now I literally have no idea what perspective are we trying to tackle the issue from.

 

From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least).

 

From a philosophical POV, I see the issue as extremely malleable. Enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs is going to solve some problems (your society won't ever have the problem of silencing opinions diverging from those supporting the status quo) and run into some others (sometimes the status quo is really not that terrible to have, especially when the alternative is the ****ing nazis). In certain situations, it's better to have one, in others, the other.

 

 

Admittedly, this is my completely uneducated opinion and I'm looking forward to seeing the problem from new angles I haven't considered yet (but am sure people who earn their living actually dealing with the tricky issues of lawmaking have).

 

you want statistical evidence of improved quality of life resulting from a specific fundamental right?   was that serious?  

 

...

 

really?

 

pointless anyway... we hope. hypothetical: an incontrovertible statistical study shows that religion or monogamous marriage is ultimate harmful to a society.  would that study convince you that laws providing for the freedom to worship or marriage to a single person should be repealed or abridged?  

 

and am also gonna take issue with your implied characterization o' First Amendment privilege as "enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs." what does that mean?  is likely borne of a misunderstanding.  you wanna stand on a sidewalk or street outside o' a hospital and complain 'bout obamacare?  sure, why the hell not?  however, if you use a bullhorn to get your message across, and you blast your anger-filled tirade 24/7 so that you  is disturbing patients, the cops will stop you and they will be justified in doing so.  is not "at all costs."   never has been.  however, is damn clear that if the cost is abridging your speech for no reason other than that Gromnir were offended, then we see no difficulty in balancing.  

 

am suspecting that you would be offended (at least we hope so) by attempts to suppress purely academic arguments that run counter to whatever is the consensus o' economists, biologists or physicists, yes?  why?  are you confident enough -arrogant enough- to decide the truth that should be embraced by any discipline?  no? is that kinda arrogance okay for social truths? personal truth? why should you decide?  why should the majority be allowed to decide which truths is absolute or which opinions is too controversial?  

 

 

suppress?  should such views have been suppressed? 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/02/magazine/tm-10501

 

did shockley's "science" cross the line?  was his studies any less offensive than some random nazi in skokie quoting mein kampf?  how does one measure benefit or harm?  you got some kinda balancing test in mind? shockley were more offensive and dangerous than any number bigots, and his science (edit: apparently, we can't spell science. sheesh) ended up being discredited.  does that make a difference?  if the random bigot shouting on the street corner is  quoting shockley, then what?

 

doesn't matter.  shouldn't matter.

 

gd brought up orwell.  is appropriate.

 

"if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am hoping it is clear that we ain't a fan o' shockley.  

 

"In a Playboy interview, he aired his low opinion of his three children, of whom two were college graduates, one from Radcliffe and the other from Stanford. "In terms of my own capacities . . . [they] represent a very significant regression," he said. "My first wife--their mother--had not as high an academic-achievement standing as I had.""

 

the guy were a d-bag... regardless o' his brobdingnagian scientific achievements in physics.  his eugenics studies were largely discredited, which only embittered him further, but his efforts challenged many educated folks and their competing notions regarding the need for intellectual freedom, and a desire to suppress offensive speech.  how does one do so?  easy. don't.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least).

 

From a philosophical POV, I see the issue as extremely malleable. Enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs is going to solve some problems (your society won't ever have the problem of silencing opinions diverging from those supporting the status quo) and run into some others (sometimes the status quo is really not that terrible to have, especially when the alternative is the ****ing nazis). In certain situations, it's better to have one, in others, the other.

 

you want statistical evidence of improved quality of life resulting from a specific fundamental right?   was that serious?  

 

...

 

really?

 

 

 

What did you just say about argumentum ad absurdum just a page back?

 

...In any case, if you're arguing that countries that have hate speech laws are objectively in the wrong morally, legally, or what-have-you, it most certainly would be nice if at least some sort of concrete proof could be levied in favor of that stance.

 

Because from where I'm standing, it suspiciously looks like an acute case of status quo bias.

 

 

 

 

pointless anyway... we hope. hypothetical: an incontrovertible statistical study shows that religion or monogamous marriage is ultimate harmful to a society.  would that study convince you that laws providing for the freedom to worship or marriage to a single person should be repealed or abridged?  

 

 

 

No. Then again, I'm not claiming to be the sole wielder of correct judgment in such matters. My stance continues to be "laws emerge in specific contexts, with the goal of garnering specific outcomes hopefully suited to resolving some of the challenges posed by said contexts, and to presume to judge them objectively, in a mental model devoid of those contexts, is an exercise in futility at best".

 

Case in point: in the same situation, would you decry it as evil and objectively wrong from a moral standpoint if a nation would change its laws accordingly?

 

 

 

and am also gonna take issue with your implied characterization o' First Amendment privilege as "enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs." what does that mean?  

 

 

 

It's not a characterization of First Amendment privilege. It refers to the fundamental unwillingness to consider said privilege as anything but an unalienable right in any just society.

 

 

 

am suspecting that you would be offended (at least we hope so) by attempts to suppress purely academic arguments that run counter to whatever is the consensus o' economists, biologists or physicists, yes?  why?  are you confident enough -arrogant enough- to decide the truth that should be embraced by any discipline?  no? is that kinda arrogance okay for social truths? personal truth? why should you decide?  why should the majority be allowed to decide which truths is absolute or which opinions is too controversial?  

 

 

suppress?  should such views have been suppressed? 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/02/magazine/tm-10501

 

did shockley's "science" cross the line?  was his studies any less offensive than some random nazi in skokie quoting mein kampf?  how does one measure benefit or harm?  you got some kinda balancing test in mind? shockley were more offensive and dangerous than any number bigots, and his silence ended up being discredited.  does that make a difference?  if the random bigot shouting on the street corner is  quoting shockley, then what?

 

doesn't matter.  shouldn't matter.

 

 

 

So it is a practical issue, then? People in aggregate tend to be stupid, therefore letting them set the limits on public speech could only lead to unpleasantness? I can respect that.

[Barothmuk]

Haven't done this in a while

 

 

isidewith

[Gromnir]

am not sure where you see reductio ad absurdum from us?  

 

"From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least)."

 

were your absurdity, not ours. 

 

"Case in point: in the same situation, would you decry it as evil and objectively wrong from a moral standpoint if a nation would change its laws accordingly?"

 

depends on what you mean by evil.  we ain't used that term but regardless, personally we would never, under any circumstances, criminalize a man for the singular reason that he professed his belief in a divine power.  make most extreme and ridiculous possible: even if the only way to save the species were to force a married woman to have multiple partners other than her husband, we would accept that the species weren't worth saving.  However, much as your misguided "at all costs" notion were misplaced, we will note that despite Gromnir being much more interested in preserving personal liberties as 'posed to caving to the "tyranny of the majority," the US constitution can be amended.  if one wishes to make hate speech or monogamous marriage or the worship o' a higher power criminal acts, the People can do so in the United States. 

 

"It's not a characterization of First Amendment privilege. It refers to the fundamental unwillingness to consider said privilege as anything but an unalienable right in any just society."

 

now you ain't even responding to Gromnir.  

 

*shrug*

 

am not certain what you hoped to achieve with your final point 'bout practicality.  another mischaracterization perhaps?

 

didn't think this were necessary, but might as well add. 

 

http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

 

the people can make hate speech a crime.  we cannot think of justification save for more reductio ad absurdum, but the mechanic exists.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gromnir

[Meshugger]

 

Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will:

 

 

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog.[34][35]

On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to stand for trial on charges of ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges were raised on the basis of remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on Halla-aho's blog in 2008. Here, he wrote that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, making reference to Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, and that Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia.[36] In another text, he asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.[31] The text was originally intended as a response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaperKaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.[37]

 

 

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how?

 

 

No, it was not about the level of racism expressed by him or the newspaper, but rather it was to highlight the absurdity of it all: the guy just applied the same argument to its logical conclusion, but to another target than the native population.

 

He got criminal charges against him for his opinion, while the newspaper did not. As in he might be equal to some, but some are simply more equal to others. A perfect example of an Orwellian society in motion if anything, and they didn't even had to fire a single shot or have the police to bash his skull in. If you have no problem with this, then there's little to discuss really.

[Bartimaeus]

snip

Your image doesn't load for me.

 

 

I expanded all questions and alternative stances, though I did not answer questions I felt I had little to no understanding of, including most notably some about immigration and education.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Heijoushin]

That quiz thingy was interesting. Apparently, I'm a Hillary Clinton man!

[Oerwinde]