Do you believe in complete freedom of speech? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14878369
People should be able to talk, including being rude, up until the point actual weapons come out and get used. That is just how it should be. Who wants to live like people did under the stasi? It is odious. Always fearful of who might be listening, of dissappearing, all that... Clearly with people like muslims with their hate speech against "infidels", or communists with their hate speech against "capitalists" (should I take that personally? I could very easily self-identify as either or both) it gets tricky how much latitude you can really allow them. One minute they are talking about killing the infidel or the capitalist and the next bombs are going off or people are being lined up and shot in the back of the head. Words can lead to actions. It happens. I guess there is some balance to be struck. It is just sad that there are always rotten eggs spoiling it for the rest of us.
#14878372
Victoribus Spolia wrote:1. the statement "You are a filthy N*****." would be hate speech as a discriminatory verbal attack (ad-hominem) under this definition.


Hate speech. Discriminated a person by race.

2. the statement: "Because you are a N*****, your opinion on this matter is invalid" would also be hate speech as a discriminatory verbal attack (ad-hominem) under this definition.


Hate speech. Discriminated a people by race.

3. the statement: "Blacks have statistically lower I.Q.s and higher levels of testosterone and are therefore more biologically predisposed to negative conflict resolutions" WOULD NOT be hate speech because it is not an ad-hominem, but merely a propositional claim that must be verified or disproven through reasoned analysis.


Depends on the evidence proved. With evidence it is a fact. If not, it would be an assumption but not hate speech - if that was your only statement on the issue.

4. The statement: "the black race is destined to European subjugation, for the curse transmitted to the descendants of Ham is an irrevocable divine decree." WOULD NOT be hate speech because it is likewise a claim, even if religious, that is not a direct attack, but a proposition that must be analyzed as either true or false, whether theologically, or otherwise.


Hate speech. The reason is you are making a false assumption on a race. Hate speech does not have to be aimed at a single person. It can be aimed at an entire race.

5. the statement: "You are a Christian and therefore must be a hypocrite that ought not to be taken seriously," would be hate speech.


Hate speech. You are claiming that someone is a hypocrite due to their religion.

6. the statements that: "Christianity is a false religion" and "Islam is morally wicked" both would not count as hate speech, but as statements to be verified.


False religion is fine, morally wicked is not. False religion is an opinion that is not agressive, morally wicked is an opinion that is agressive as you are suggestion that whoever practices that religion is wicked.

7. the statement that: "You are white, therefore you are disqualified from discussing matters pertaining to race-relations" would be hate speech, because it is an ad-hominem( verbal attack), grounded on a discriminating characteristic.


Grey area. Depends on the context. If it is solely on race relations it is actually hate speech. If it is on an experience a specific race suffers from that someone who is white does not experience it is rude, but not hate speech.

8. the statement: "homosexuality is a damnable sin, and ought to be illegal." would not be hate speech because it is not an ad-hominem, but expressed political opinion that must be weighed on its merits of lack thereof.


The words 'damnable sin' makes it hate speech as you are suggesting that it is a sin to practice homosexuality. Without those words in the sentence it would be an opinion.

9. the statement: "queers don't squeak when they fart" in a comedic context, would not be hate speech.


Depends on the emphasis of the term 'queers' when it was being said. If you change the term to homosexual, no it wouldn't be hate speech.

10. the statement: "white boys always be worrying about their hair-loss" in a comedic context, would not be hate speech.


In a comedic context, not hate speech.
#14878377
B0ycey wrote:Hate speech. The reason is you are making a false assumption on a race. Hate speech does not have to be aimed at a single person. It can be aimed at an entire race.


Its not a false assumption if God exists and this is what the Bible teaches. So wouldn't you be categorically disqualifying a religious interpretation and therefore also a propositional claim that must be verified as a either true or false, as automatically hate speech? Likewise, discussion of important questions, that include this, would be ipso facto illegal under your use of the term.

B0ycey wrote:False religion is fine, morally wicked is not. False religion is an opinion that is not agressive, morally wicked is an opinion that is agressive as you are suggestion that whoever practices that religion is wicked.


What if it is true though? Assuming the moral standard by which the claim is made, is valid, it would not be an aggressive ad-hominem, (per the definition provided by PoD) but a propositional claim that must be verified. For instance, secular utilititarianism would say that the religiously justified practice of forbidding abortion is wicked (immoral); Islam religiously justifies forbidding abortion, therefore Islam is wicked (this is a valid informal syllogism); thus, those who practice Islam, insofar as they assent to this teaching, would by definition be wicked according to secular utilitarianism.

Should we ban secular utilitarian critiques of religion as hate speech?

What about the website "Evil Bible" that attacks Christianity as an evil religion, should it be banned? Under your position it seems that you would have to.

Likewise, some people would say that the belief in God is an immoral (and therefore a wicked) belief. Christopher Hitchens held this view and also argued that the doctrine of substitutional atonement, held by almost all Christians, was an incredibly wicked and immoral belief. Would you say that making that claim would likewise be hate speech under your position? and that critiquing the atonement in this way would be hate speech?

B0ycey wrote:Grey area. Depends on the context. If it is solely on race relations it is actually hate speech. If it is on an experience a specific race suffers from that someone who is white does not experience it is rude, but not hate speech.


The point was, if you disqualify, in all seriousness, the input of another person, solely on the basis of their skin color, is that hate speech? Is it?

B0ycey wrote:The words 'damnable sin' makes it hate speech as you are suggesting that it is a sin to practice homosexuality. Without those words in the sentence it would be an opinion.


That is actually my religious belief and the religious belief of pretty much all of Islam and all bible-affirming evangelicals. So would you say that it should be illegal for them to discuss their doctrinal positions?

Likewise, its not a direct ad-hominem (an attack), its a propositional statement that must be verified. For instance, is it "true" that such is a damnable sin? Obviously atheists will say no (because they deny both damnation and sin), but Muslims and conservative Christians will say yes (because their scriptures teach such).

B0ycey wrote:Depends on the emphasis of the term 'queers' when it was being said. If you change the term to homosexual, no it wouldn't be hate speech.


No comedian is going to generalize with the bulky technical term: "homosexual," that would be like saying comedians can only make jokes about white people if they use the term "Caucasian."

Really?

How about instead of queer, they use the terms "Gays"? :lol: Is that hate speech?

B0ycey wrote:In a comedic context, not hate speech.



Its interesting how I see a pattern emerging, no qualification if it disparages whites and Christians, but nuance must be carefully followed for all else? or when it is clearly racism if used against blacks, if used against whites we can apply nuance?

This why I insisted on definitions with PoD, because leftists are going to use "hate speech" to attack certain religious and ethnic groups for their views, while omitting others.

Christianity a false religion?....simple, no prob. joke about white boys?...simple, no prob. Islam is wicked...HATE SPEECH! ILLEGAL! joke about queers?...HATE SPEECH! ILLEGAL!

:hmm:
#14878385
To be honest VS, all your statements depend on the context beyond the statements themselves.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its not a false assumption if God exists and this is what the Bible teaches. So wouldn't you be categorically disqualifying a religious interpretation and therefore also a propositional claim that must be verified as a either true or false, as automatically hate speech? Likewise, discussion of important questions, that include this, would be ipso facto illegal under your use of the term.


If you are basing your opinion on religious text that you can quote, even if the opinion is extreme it isn't hate speech as you have religious freedom. However if you act on that opinion, you can fall victim to discrimination.

What if it is true though? Assuming the moral standard by which the claim is made, is valid, it would not be an aggressive ad-hominem, (per the definition provided by PoD) but a propositional claim that must be verified. For instance, secular utilititarianism would say that the religiously justified practice of forbidding abortion is wicked (immoral); Islam religiously justifies forbidding abortion, therefore Islam is wicked (this is a valid informal syllogism); thus, those who practice Islam, insofar as they assent to this teaching, would by definition be wicked according to secular utilitarianism.


An opinion is not hate speech. If you can provide evidence to back your opinion it is not hate speech.

Should we ban secular utilitarian critiques of religion as hate speech?


No, but you must be aware of the full context of what you are publishing. If someone is being discriminated against by their sex, race or religion without evidence, it is likely going to fall victim to hate speech.

What about the website "Evil Bible" that attacks Christianity as an evil religion, should it be banned? Under your position it seems that you would have to.


Depends on what they are publishing.

Likewise, some people would say that the belief in God is an immoral (and therefore a wicked) belief. Christopher Hitchens held this view and also argued that the doctrine of substitutional atonement, held by almost all Christians, was an incredibly wicked and immoral belief. Would you say that making that claim would likewise be hate speech under your position? and that critiquing the atonement in this way would be hate speech?


Actually, again it depends on the context so I might contradict myself here. This is where your statements need more background to them. You can say any religion is wicked if you can provide a reason for that conclusion. For example, if you quote the bible/Qur'an or the actions of people of said religion that have acted according to their religion you can make that argument. But you will be walking on a tightrope as you do so. You can only base your opinion on the religion itself and not the people who practice the religion for example.

The point was, if you disqualify, in all seriousness, the input of another person, solely on the basis of their skin color, is that hate speech?Is it?


The bold part is hate speech. But as I mentioned, it depends on the context. You can make that statement if you can provide evidence that the input of the white person is ineffective. And that is easily possible when discussing specific areas within 'race relations'.

That is actually my religious belief and the religious belief of pretty much all of Islam and all bible-affirming evangelicals. So would you say that it should be illegal for them to discuss their doctrinal positions?

Likewise, its not a direct ad-hominem (an attack), its a propositional statement that must be verified. For instance, is it "true" that such is a damnable sin? Obviously atheists will say no (because they deny both damnation and sin), but Muslims and conservative Christians will say yes (because their scriptures teach such).


Yes, I will concede here. As it is your religious belief and can provide religious text to back your claim, you are able to say this under religious freedom. The irony of course is that a homosexual can use the same religious text to suggest Christianity is a 'wicked religion'.

No comedian is going to generalize with the bulky technical term: "homosexual," that would be like saying comedians can only make jokes about white people if they use the term "Caucasian."

Really?

How about instead of queer, they use the terms "Gays"? :lol: Is that hate speech?


Depends on the context. The term queer is offensive in certain contexts. The same applies with gays. White people is not offensive. You could probably get away with your statement if you said 'queer people' or 'gay people' rather than queers or gays.

Its interesting how I see a pattern emerging, no qualification if it disparages whites and Christians, but nuance must be carefully followed for all else? or when it is clearly racism if used against blacks, if used against whites we can apply nuance?

This why I insisted on definitions with PoD, because leftists are going to use "hate speech" to attack certain religious and ethnic groups for their views, while omitting others.

Christianity a false religion?....simple, no prob. joke about white boys?...simple, no prob. Islam is wicked...HATE SPEECH! ILLEGAL! joke about queers?...HATE SPEECH! ILLEGAL!

:hmm:


Right, I am going to make it simple for you to understand whether something is hate speech or not.

If you say/publish something that is offensive (whether comedic or not) without any foundation to it, it is hate speech. Sometimes that might be the terminology you use within the statement rather than the statement itself. For example, you can say 'Michael Jordan is black', but not 'Michael Jordan is a N.....' The statement is the same, the termonolgy is different. And the terminology is what makes the statement hate speech or not. Simples.
#14878388
@B0ycey
Do you want to put someone in prison just for saying something, even something you don't like or find offensive?

Arguing about whether this, that or the other is hate speech or not seems to me to be beside the point, as much as arguing about whether this, that or other is heresy or sedition. What the issue is: should people go to prison for saying something. Are words that scary? Is the GDR's stasi or the Catholic inquisition our role model now?

---------

Taking a break from principles it may do to consider the practicalities... Imagine 1 million people say the n-word... Are you going to put all of them in prison, or just make example of a few? What if the example does not suffice and 1 million keep saying the n-word? It seems to me a wise governor who must bear the cost of legal punishment without necessarily gaining any revenue from such legal punishments shouldn't be in any hurry to put himself in danger of having to make resident in one's dungeons practically the whole country... I ask myself if I were absolute monarch, or generalissmo or whatever, how far would I want to limit free speech really? It would be a pain in the neck tracking down and neutralising actual security threats without also imprisoning vast numbers of ordinary everyday gobby cunts who don't know how to speak politely... What is wrong with you people?
Last edited by SolarCross on 10 Jan 2018 21:14, edited 2 times in total.
#14878390
SolarCross wrote:@B0ycey
Do you want to put someone in prison for saying something, even something you don't like or find offensive?


I wouldn't even be on this forum if I was offended by statements that I disagreed with. There might be like two users on here that I could say I agree with almost everything they write. Everyone else is flawed (in my opinion).

As for prison, no I wouldn't stick anyone In jail for disagreeing with me.

Arguing about whether this, that or the other is hate speech or not seems to me to be beside the point, as much as arguing about whether this, that or other is heresy or sedition. What the issue is: should people go to prison for saying something. Are words that scary? Is the GDR's stasi our role model now?


VS made the statements, I had a spare five minutes and replied. I wasn't really arguing with him, as what I wrote is actually fact.

But again on prison. That is an issue to do with the law. If you break the law you can go to jail. Hate speech is a crime. It isn't whether or not I would send someone to prison, it is whether or not the law would. Perhaps if people take five minutes and think about what they say, hate speech would never be an issue. After all, hate speech is common sense. If you think it's wrong or offensive, 99% of the time it is.
#14878394
B0ycey wrote:After all, hate speech is common sense.

No its totally subjective. To me Islamic teachings are clearly racist and hatred. But I know that there are many that would disagree with me. Some would even characterise my characterisation of Islam as hate speech, as hate speech. But then I would say that them calling my characterisation of Islam as hate speech, hate speech, hate speech.
#14878399
Victoribus Spolia wrote:An argument's validity can only be properly assessed via the use of precise definitions.


Since you want to discuss definitions instead of putting forth an actual argument, it seems like you are not interested in assessing any arguments.

Also, this sounds like sophist b.s.

So, given the mere definition of attack you provided only references verbal attacks in the following sense:

and assuming that we can agree that a direct threat of violence or the attempt to incite violence should both be illegal. (please state otherwise if you disagree)

Then, would it follow, from the definition you gave, that only such speech as qualifies as a form of ad-hominem, purely on a discriminatory basis, would qualify as hate speech?

I will give ten examples below of "is not hate speech" and is "hate speech" and you can quote them individually in your response and simply write "agree" or "disagree" so I can know that we are on the same page. I will not included threats that we both view as illegal, though I would allow that threats can also be hate speech. I am presenting these examples and keeping an open mind to possibly coming to an agreement, but I want to know implications because I think the Left can be deceptive on this issue in order to suppress opposition and opinions they find "offensive." Depending on how you answer, will tell me whether this is so or not.

1. the statement "You are a filthy N*****." would be hate speech as a discriminatory verbal attack (ad-hominem) under this definition.

2. the statement: "Because you are a N*****, your opinion on this matter is invalid" would also be hate speech as a discriminatory verbal attack (ad-hominem) under this definition.

3. the statement: "Blacks have statistically lower I.Q.s and higher levels of testosterone and are therefore more biologically predisposed to negative conflict resolutions" WOULD NOT be hate speech because it is not an ad-hominem, but merely a propositional claim that must be verified or disproven through reasoned analysis.

4. The statement: "the black race is destined to European subjugation, for the curse transmitted to the descendants of Ham is an irrevocable divine decree." WOULD NOT be hate speech because it is likewise a claim, even if religious, that is not a direct attack, but a proposition that must be analyzed as either true or false, whether theologically, or otherwise.

5. the statement: "You are a Christian and therefore must be a hypocrite that ought not to be taken seriously," would be hate speech.

6. the statements that: "Christianity is a false religion" and "Islam is morally wicked" both would not count as hate speech, but as statements to be verified.

7. the statement that: "You are white, therefore you are disqualified from discussing matters pertaining to race-relations" would be hate speech, because it is an ad-hominem( verbal attack), grounded on a discriminating characteristic.

8. the statement: "homosexuality is a damnable sin, and ought to be illegal." would not be hate speech because it is not an ad-hominem, but expressed political opinion that must be weighed on its merits of lack thereof.

9. the statement: "queers don't squeak when they fart" in a comedic context, would not be hate speech.

10. the statement: "white boys always be worrying about their hair-loss" in a comedic context, would not be hate speech.

I am genuinely curious about your answers to these. I would like to see @The Immortal Goon, and @Wellsy, answers as well.


The question as to whether or not racist speech should be protected has nothing to do with my personal opinions about these statements.

Look, this is all really swell if you want to have a ten page discussion on the definition of racism, which is a tactic of yours to avoid a question, but that is not what I am discussing.

If you want to discuss the definition of racism for ten pages, go ahead. This is fine with me. As I said, it supports the claim that there is no actual argument for protecting hate speech and racist speech.

——————————

SolarCross wrote:People should be able to talk, including being rude, up until the point actual weapons come out and get used. That is just how it should be.


This means you can threaten people, cause a panic that results in deaths, lie about them and sully their reputation so that they get fired and blacklisted, and plan to have someone killed. These should all be perfectly legal to you.

Who wants to live like people did under the stasi? It is odious. Always fearful of who might be listening, of dissappearing, all that... Clearly with people like muslims with their hate speech against "infidels", or communists with their hate speech against "capitalists" (should I take that personally? I could very easily self-identify as either or both) it gets tricky how much latitude you can really allow them. One minute they are talking about killing the infidel or the capitalist and the next bombs are going off or people are being lined up and shot in the back of the head. Words can lead to actions. It happens. I guess there is some balance to be struck. It is just sad that there are always rotten eggs spoiling it for the rest of us.


I did live like that for a while, under a capitalist dictatorship.

As far as I can tell, you have not?

Lol.

SolarCross wrote:Do you want to put someone in prison just for saying something, even something you don't like or find offensive?

Arguing about whether this, that or the other is hate speech or not seems to me to be beside the point, as much as arguing about whether this, that or other is heresy or sedition. What the issue is: should people go to prison for saying something. Are words that scary? Is the GDR's stasi or the Catholic inquisition our role model now?

---------

Taking a break from principles it may do to consider the practicalities... Imagine 1 million people say the n-word... Are you going to put all of them in prison, or just make example of a few? What if the example does not suffice and 1 million keep saying the n-word? It seems to me a wise governor who must bear the cost of legal punishment without necessarily gaining any revenue from such legal punishments shouldn't be in any hurry to put himself in danger of having to make resident in one's dungeons practically the whole country... I ask myself if I were absolute monarch, or generalissmo or whatever, how far would I want to limit free speech really? It would be a pain in the neck tracking down and neutralising actual security threats without also imprisoning vast numbers of ordinary everyday gobby cunts who don't know how to speak politely... What is wrong with you people?


Since no one has mentioned inprisonment, this seems like a huge strawman.
#14878400
It is common sense @rich as most people (so common) are aware of what is offensive or not.

As for your point, if you can back up your characterisation with evidence then it will not be hate speech - even if people don't like what you wrote. It's when you can't and discriminate solely of sex, race or religion that you fall victim to hate speech.

@SolarCross, a financial penalty can be just as affective as incarceration. I'm sure the treasury would enjoy a million £1000 fines. I suspect people would think twice using such language with a penalty that size too.
#14878431
Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, you have not put forth an argument as to why it should be protected. You just complained about the definition. Your feelings about how well defined it is are not an argument.

Yes, prohibiting racist speech does have a political agenda: eradicating racism.


The way I understand your reasoning, and absent a clear definition, it will depend on the interpretation of some authority or judge to decide what is hate speech and what is racism.

I suppose you would call it racism if people state that they do not want masses of Muslim immigrants to come live in their societies? Or reporting on the crimes committed by those immigrants ?
#14878458
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you want to discuss definitions instead of putting forth an actual argument, it seems like you are not interested in assessing any arguments.

Also, this sounds like sophist b.s.


No, intentionally refusing to be clear so as to gain political advantage is almost the exact meaning of sophistry....so please try again.

My ten statements were meant to move the conversation past definitions and into implications, but given your reading comprehension, I am not surprised you missed that part. Besides, these statements included more than race, so i don't know where you got that I only wanted to discuss racism.

I asked to you to address the ten statements, @B0ycey, and I are actually having a productive conversation....you are welcome to join it....but that might involve more than trolling and remaining ambiguous, so I won't hold my breathe.

after all, it might expose the real snowflake that hides behind the facade of brevity and all the "provide evidence for this claim" horseshit you spouse ad infinitum.

B0ycey wrote:To be honest VS, all your statements depend on the context beyond the statements themselves.


You maybe right, but that is where I think its dangerous to begin with in agreement with @Ter, and @SolarCross.

If illegal speech in your opinion should only be libel, threats, incitement to violence, ad-hominems made on a discriminatory basis, and negative generalizations made with absolutely no support....I suppose i find such innoculous and thus do not feel inherently threatened by banning that kind of hate speech, HOWEVER, given the sort of "analysis" we just had to do to qualify the simple statements I made, I feel even this minimalist definition of hate speech (while not bothering me) will still lend itself to being twisted for political ends, which does bother me.

Thus a more open freedom for speech seems less risky. like I said though, even if being a serious dick or a psychopath was all that hatespeech outlawed based on the simplist of determinations, I would see no threat in it to extreme contrarians such as myself.

But the devil is in the details, and as it stands, the burden of proof is on those seeking to change traditional common-law notions of free-speech. They must prove why hate speech will not infringe on the right to express divergent opinions of the most controversial and potentially offensive sort as well as protect inappropriate jokes about any demographic.
#14878462
Ter wrote:The way I understand your reasoning, and absent a clear definition, it will depend on the interpretation of some authority or judge to decide what is hate speech and what is racism.


Is this a problem?

I suppose you would call it racism if people state that they do not want masses of Muslim immigrants to come live in their societies? Or reporting on the crimes committed by those immigrants ?


@B0ycey has done a great job explaining how context is necessary for these sorts of questions.

So, how many posts have we gone back and forth without any argument as to why racist speech should be protected?

It’s not like you can use the usual reasons, such as protecting us from government tyranny.

——————————

Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, intentionally refusing to be clear so as to gain political advantage is almost the exact meaning of sophistry....so please try again.

My ten statements were meant to move the conversation past definitions and into implications, but given your reading comprehension, I am not surprised you missed that part. Besides, these statements included more than race, so i don't know where you got that I only wanted to discuss racism.

I asked to you to address the ten statements, @B0ycey, and I are actually having a productive conversation....you are welcome to join it....but that might involve more than trolling and remaining ambiguous, so I won't hold my breathe.

after all, it might expose the real snowflake that hides behind the facade of brevity and all the "provide evidence for this claim" horseshit you spouse ad infinitum.


Still no argument, I see.

If definitions are that important, I am happy to use whatever definition you want of racism and hate speech, as long as they are not ridiculous.

And yes, there are political ends: eradicating racism. This is not a secret.

I assumed you were discussing racism because that is what I was talking about when you replied to me and started this conversation between us.

You seem to have this odd idea that you can simply ignore my point and change the subject to whatever you want.

Now, you can answer my question, or keep having your definition discussion, but I have no idea why you replied to me when you weren’t interested in what I am discussing.

But your lack of argument supports my idea that there is no good argument, so go hard!
#14878467
Pants-of-dog wrote:Still no argument, I see.

If definitions are that important, I am happy to use whatever definition you want of racism and hate speech, as long as they are not ridiculous.

And yes, there are political ends: eradicating racism. This is not a secret.

I assumed you were discussing racism because that is what I was talking about when you replied to me and started this conversation between us.

You seem to have this odd idea that you can simply ignore my point and change the subject to whatever you want.

Now, you can answer my question, or keep having your definition discussion, but I have no idea why you replied to me when you weren’t interested in what I am discussing.

But your lack of argument supports my idea that there is no good argument, so go hard!


What argument am I suppose to make exactly?

and you assumed wrong, I was not responding to whatever absurd notions you hold on racism.

However, you have been inconsistent on whether a definition of racism in essential to a discussion of hate speech. You criticized me for wanting to talk about racism (which I wasn't) because it was off topic from a discussion of free-speech v. hate speech, but then you argued that (1) the political aims of hate speech laws are to eradicate racism (contra you complaint against me) and (2) you are willing to use any definition of racism i would propose in order to advance the conversation (which seems to indicate that the two are inseparable in your mind).

However, my ten statements are based on the previous definitions you gave for both (1) hate speech and (2) attack. So I was actually using your definitions (which is proper in dialectics, as you are the one making the claim) and yet you refused to address the statements because they were somehow "avoiding" the topic? Like I told Boycey, given your previous definition as mentioned and the clarifications given by Boycey in his latest response, if this were the case, I would not personally feel that there was an issue with banning such speech, but like I also told Boycey, given the continued dependence such has on interpretation, such is naturally prone to abuse. Thus, it still seems that the old notions of free speech are safer at preserving an open market place of ideas and political opinions, not to mention off-color humor.

I am making an effort to understand your position, but you don't seem to want it to be understood. if you can't see why this makes people suspicious than I suppose we can add social ineptitude to poor reading comprehension as some of your inherent faults.

If racism is what you are trying to eradicate, and you believe that racism is power + prejudice, then how is this not an admission that you believe that hate speech laws are designed for the sole purpose of censoring the speech of white people in white majority countries?

However, if we were using my definition of racism, which includes malevolent intent for malevolent ends, which is consistent with you original definitions, we would advance nothing beyong whay Boycey and i already included.

So what more in way of argument do you want? You have not posited anything worth arguing against and otherwise my position is clear as it was presented to Boycey.
#14878468
Victoribus Spolia wrote:What argument am I suppose to make exactly?

and you assumed wrong, I was not responding to whatever absurd notions you hold on racism.


Okay. Then please stop responding to my posts. It seems odd to reply to me when you do not want to discuss what I am talking about.

However, you have been inconsistent on whether a definition of racism in essential to a discussion of hate speech. You criticized me for wanting to talk about racism (which I wasn't) because it was off topic from a discussion of free-speech v. hate speech, but then you argued that (1) the political aims of hate speech laws are to eradicate racism (contra you complaint against me) and (2) you are willing to use any definition of racism i would propose in order to advance the conversation (which seems to indicate that the two are inseparable in your mind).

However, my ten statements are based on the previous definitions you gave for both (1) hate speech and (2) attack. So I was actually using your definitions (which is proper in dialectics, as you are the one making the claim) and yet you refused to address the statements because they were somehow "avoiding" the topic? Like I told Boycey, given your previous definition as mentioned and the clarifications given by Boycey in his latest response, if this were the case, I would not personally feel that there was an issue with banning such speech, but like I also told Boycey, given the continued dependence such has on interpretation, such is naturally prone to abuse. Thus, it still seems that the old notions of free speech are safer at preserving an open market place of ideas and political opinions, not to mention off-color humor.

I am making an effort to understand your position, but you don't seem to want it to be understood. if you can't see why this makes people suspicious than I suppose we can add social ineptitude to poor reading comprehension as some of your inherent faults.

If racism is what you are trying to eradicate, and you believe that racism is power + prejudice, then how is this not an admission that you believe that hate speech laws are designed for the sole purpose of censoring the speech of white people in white majority countries?

However, if we were using my definition of racism, which includes malevolent intent for malevolent ends, which is consistent with you original definitions, we would advance nothing beyong whay Boycey and i already included.

So what more in way of argument do you want? You have not posited anything worth arguing against and otherwise my position is clear as it was presented to Boycey.


My question was:

Is there an argument for protecting racist speech?
#14878472
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is this a problem?

Of course that is a problem. Absent clear definitions, everybody will be at the mercy of many so-called authorities. Someone at twitter, facebook, a school principal, a judge, they will all be allowed to judge what is permissible and what is not. We should not be submitted to such arbitrary judgements.

I will give one anecdotal example here.
When I was working in Zambia, there was only one channel on TV and they were broadcasting American movies and TV series from time to time. Every kissing scene and gun shot was edited out of those broadcasts. It was annoying and also comical. Starsky and Hutch episodes would be much shorter than usual and would suddenly show persons with bandages because all the violence was edited out.

Sometime later I visited the Zambian TV building a couple of times as I was producing health clips to be shown before the daily news broadcast. I was talking to some technical person about the work we did and I used the occasion to ask him who is editing all those movies and series. He looked at me and said he was the one. I asked him what the criteria were and he said he was cutting all the "bad things".
It looks as if the West (and PoD) have accepted those Zambian values.
#14878525
B0ycey wrote:It is common sense @rich as most people (so common) are aware of what is offensive or not.

As for your point, if you can back up your characterisation with evidence then it will not be hate speech -

Mohammad stopped Pagan worship at the Kaaba in Mecca. That was a hate crime, I've never heard of a Muslim that denies it. Pagans are still not allowed into the city let alone the Kaaba. This is Apartheid. Any Muslim that supports the ban on Pagan worship at the Kaaba, is a racist and is guilty of hate crime and supporting terrorism.
#14878595
B0ycey wrote:, a financial penalty can be just as affective as incarceration. I'm sure the treasury would enjoy a million £1000 fines. I suspect people would think twice using such language with a penalty that size too.

It's more profitable, but only if they pay up, if they don't then you have to incarcerate them anyway or no one will pay up. If enough people don't or can't pay up, you still end up losing money. It is not a guaranteed money spinner.

The realm as a whole suffers too. The people who will be paying the fines will be productive people: bricklayers, plumbers, football players whatever, paying from money earned doing such, the people receiving the fines will be lazy, slackwitted, morally compromised government officials for doing nothing but making spurious accusations... It will be a licenced extortion racket.

The hunting dog needs fewer fleas not more.
Last edited by SolarCross on 11 Jan 2018 19:36, edited 3 times in total.
#14878596
Ter wrote:Of course that is a problem. Absent clear definitions, everybody will be at the mercy of many so-called authorities. Someone at twitter, facebook, a school principal, a judge, they will all be allowed to judge what is permissible and what is not. We should not be submitted to such arbitrary judgements.


This is how all other crimes and illegal acts are judged: by a judge or jury after arguments are brougt forth by both sides. If this is your criticism, then your criticism is with the entire justice system and not banning racist speech.

I will give one anecdotal example here.
When I was working in Zambia, there was only one channel on TV and they were broadcasting American movies and TV series from time to time. Every kissing scene and gun shot was edited out of those broadcasts. It was annoying and also comical. Starsky and Hutch episodes would be much shorter than usual and would suddenly show persons with bandages because all the violence was edited out.

Sometime later I visited the Zambian TV building a couple of times as I was producing health clips to be shown before the daily news broadcast. I was talking to some technical person about the work we did and I used the occasion to ask him who is editing all those movies and series. He looked at me and said he was the one. I asked him what the criteria were and he said he was cutting all the "bad things".
It looks as if the West (and PoD) have accepted those Zambian values.


Since I never argued that some random dude with no authority or accountability should have the total and final say, this is a strawman.

————————————

Seeing as how no one can make an argument for protecting racist speech, we should look at arguments for free speech in general and see if they apply.

The most obvious one is that free speech is a safeguard against government tyranny. Unfortunately, being racist does not challenge government overreach in any way. In fact, in racist societies such as Nazi Germany or Apartheid SA, racism actively supports government tyranny.
#14878603
SolarCross wrote:It's more profitable, but only if they pay up, if they don't then you have to incarcerate them anyway or no one will pay up. If enough people don't or can't pay up, you still end up losing money. It is not a guaranteed money spinner.


I will let you in on a little secret. It is possible to deduct money from someone's wages and benefits.
#14878628
B0ycey wrote:I will let you in on a little secret. It is possible to deduct money from someone's wages and benefits.

Yes and you can rob their bank accounts or kick in their doors to raid for valuables too. Stealing for being a bit rude.

The people are a great big dog, placid and loyal but infested with fleas, we should be thinking how to purge the poor beast of his parasites not plague him with yet more varieties of blood drinkers. Death by a thousand ticks. Shameful.

Image

...You are a supporter of the genocide against th[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession ... This is co[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]