Do you believe in complete freedom of speech? - Page 4 - 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.
#14878045
@Victoribus Spolia

You often ask for definitions in order to avoid the question.

I notice no one has yet put forth an argument as to why it should be protected.

—————————

SolarCross wrote:How do you imagine you are intelligent when you can't understand even simple things such that even a small child would get? There is a word for that: narcissism.

Try again:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Now quit crying and go play nicely with the other children.


Still no argument.
#14878050
Pants-of-dog wrote:I notice no one has yet put forth an argument as to why it should be protected.

One cannot protect something that is so ill-defined.

Are the following sentences racist?

- I don't like the Inuit because they keep on killing whales
- The recent massive Muslim immigrant arrivals in Europe are a danger for our wives and daughters.
- I don't like Chileans because they stole the access to the sea from Bolivia.
- Jews like money.
#14878053
Christopher Nolan can give a big wad of cash to New York City to close a bridge and allow him to film a movie. When Occupy protesters exercise their right to assemble on a bridge they get arrested.

Rupert Murdoch can buy multiple newspapers and TV stations to promote the economic policies he prefers, when protesters express their economic preferences during WTO summits they get gassed.
#14878057
Pants-of-dog wrote:You often ask for definitions in order to avoid the question.


I ask for definitions before answering questions because I'm not stupid and this ain't my first rodeo. If you don't give a definition I cannot know what you mean nor would I have a standard by which to judge whether you bait-and-switch or equivocate later in the discussion.

One cannot answer a question with any sort of accuracy if we have a radically different understanding of what the terms mean.

For example,

If "racism" necessarily implies an incitement to physical violence, I would agree that such speech should be censored.

If "racism" means only when white people generalize about other races, I would disagree that such speech should be censored.

If your argument depends on ambiguity in definitions, you are ipso facto guilty of the fallacy by the same name.

So, tell me your definitions and I will answer your question.
#14878059
[quote="Elyzabeth"][quote="Pants-of-dog"]Why should racist speech be protected?

People are allowed to say vile things that other people totally disagree with

in America.

I live in a European country, where that is not the case, as I suspect it is not I other parts of Europe

If you disagree with what a person says vote for people who will make changes...(why?)
boycott the services of the person you disagree (your choice)
with or simply speak out against them !(that's fair enough)

Why vote for people who will make changes?

It doesn't compute,what if the political party these 'people' belong to, have, many policies that you agree with?

You imply that,all things being considered, that you would vote for another party, no matter the effect on other people or the country itself.
Is that not worthy of further consideration?

A quote I have often heard is :

"I thoroughly disagree with what you are saying, but I will die to protect you right to say it"


If you agree with the above,then it's not such a 'problem', particularly if 'freedom-of-speech' protection is your forte,as you imply of America,otherwise a touch of 'hypocrisy' enters the frame.

Another saying often heard is,"Live & let live".

Rather than being sensitive to what is or isn't said, why not look at what others do?
#14878096
I support free speech, even for hate filled filth, like the Koran, the Bible and Cultural Marxism. As I say I don't support anything but the most minimal restraint of free speech but if lefties insist that we must restrict hate speech then there must be an absolute ban on all Islamic teaching.
#14878138
Rich wrote:I support free speech, even for hate filled filth, like the Koran, the Bible and Cultural Marxism. As I say I don't support anything but the most minimal restraint of free speech but if lefties insist that we must restrict hate speech then there must be an absolute ban on all Islamic teaching.

Leftists want to control speech to the nth degree, the reason, as I am sure you know, is because they believe in nonsense, they know it is nonsense and if they are ever going to be the ruling caste as they aim to be with their ideology as the state religion they need to protect their nonsense from free inquiry, debate and criticism. They aim for a pseudo-secular theocracy in short. However directly demanding that leftists be the sole arbitrators of what is legally sayable is going to win no support from anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, so they need a more popularly palatable cover for controlling speech, hence why they support hate speech prohibition. It is a bridgehead of sorts on the way to what they really want.
#14878160
Ter wrote:One cannot protect something that is so ill-defined.

Are the following sentences racist?

- I don't like the Inuit because they keep on killing whales
- The recent massive Muslim immigrant arrivals in Europe are a danger for our wives and daughters.
- I don't like Chileans because they stole the access to the sea from Bolivia.
- Jews like money.


Well, since hate speech is protected in many places, it seems that it is possible to protect something ill defined, or that it is not ill defined.

Anyway, since you and @Victoribus Spolia need definitions:

    Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term[6] and in some it is constitutionally protected.[7]

    In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website which uses hate speech may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.

    There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[8] Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is used to silence critics.[9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
#14878196
There really seems to be a basic misunderstanding the right has of what “free speech" means.

Your feelings are not protected under freedom of speech. You cannot say whatever you want, and then say that a counter protest/argument/sign/whatever is against your freedom of speech.
#14878203
https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/
An example of a simple yet concrete analysis of only the negative dialectical analysis of the understanding is a blog I once wrote on the concept of free speech. A simple summary of the analysis is that free speech is contradictory in its idea and its reality. Free speech, as a right, upon analysis leads us to ask what kind of speech actually enacts its condition of protection, and we find it is only dissenting speech of those in minorities or outside the status quo that actually fall under the need of such a protection of speech. Insofar as one speaks things in the acceptable range of popular or power discourse, there is no need for protection. The analysis moves forward and questions why speech—mere words—should give ground for censorship at all.

One finds that speech is not mere words—not just hot air—but is also activity with practical purpose to convey messages and create responses and actions. This action-related aspect of speech is what censorship aims to stop. If speech were mere words, nobody should ever fear speech, but speech has actual capacity to be a force that moves people to action, and action in the social sphere means real struggle for changing the dominant power and the structures of power themselves. Free speech, as it is known in the West, only protects dissenting speech as mere words, but it does not and cannot protect dissenting speech that aims to promote action to fundamentally change the status quo.

In the end, free speech does not concern itself with speech as a medium of social activity at all, for these are only mere words spoken to the wind. This is the contradiction: we are free to say what we want insofar as it doesn’t lead to undesired results for the status quo. Free speech, when it is claimed to exist, only exists as empty speech—mere words to the wind with no power—for those who need it most; there is no capacity to make movement happen in this case, but it can happen. For example, this is why being a socialist during most of the last century was grounds for censorship and even imprisonment in the United States—because there was a real danger that socialist speech would be a force and spark a revolution if ignored. There is nothing more dangerous than ideas of dissent in a time where critical minds provide fertile soil to push contradictions to breaking points of action. Free speech, as such, is not an absolute right and exists within limitations of social and legal context.

The limits of free speech may make it seem weak, and its contradictions may make it seem like a useless practice and concept in all, but it is the reality of it. There is more to be said about it, but that shall suffice here.
#14878209
Pants-of-dog wrote:Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term[6] and in some it is constitutionally protected.[7]

In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website which uses hate speech may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.

There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[8] Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is used to silence critics.[9]


The text you quoted as a definition of hate speech is in fact a whole series of ill-defined definitions. It seems to depend on country to country and maybe even also on the PC feelings of the authorities.
I therefore remain steady in my position that one should not prohibit something that is ill-defined. It also seems to me that the sudden introduction of "anti-hate" speech is serving a political agenda, an attempt at weakening the populist wave in many places in the world.
#14878347
SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog

How about hate speech laws to protect "capitalists" from communist and socialist hate speech?


Lol.

Let me know when you have a serious point.

——————————

Ter wrote:The text you quoted as a definition of hate speech is in fact a whole series of ill-defined definitions. It seems to depend on country to country and maybe even also on the PC feelings of the authorities.
I therefore remain steady in my position that one should not prohibit something that is ill-defined. It also seems to me that the sudden introduction of "anti-hate" speech is serving a political agenda, an attempt at weakening the populist wave in many places in the world.


Rape is ill defined. Should we then legalise it?

Also, please note that hate speech is already protected even if it is ill defined.

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.
#14878353
Pants-of-dog wrote:Lol.

Let me know when you have a serious point.


So you are okay with that. Good. We should bring back sedition laws too then. If people want to speak freely without legal punishment for what they say then they can go live in the jungle. If you want to live in a civilised country keep a civil tongue in your head or go to gulag. We can burn all the books and pamphlets by revolutionary criminals such as your jihadis and your communists, take down their websites (excepting the dark web of course as that is untouchable practically), send all the agitators labour camps.
#14878356
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, @SolarCross, you are the poor victim of the big bad communists who run the world.

How does your emotional reaction to communism have anything to do with the topic?

That's a misrepresentation. Fortunately communists are neither big nor running the world though they are bad. I am not a victim of communism because I don't live in a communist country, the UK is not the USSR, fortunately. Would it be hate speech if I admit that if you creeps ever get a revolution going in my country then I would consider myself licenced to kill as many of you as I can? I do hate communists. Do you think that should be illegal?
#14878358
Pants-of-dog wrote:Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[


Define "attack" in this context.

Would comedic jestures and generalizations (whether true or not) be considered "attacks,"

Is attack exclusively used in reference to explicitly or implicitly inciting violence?
#14878360
@SolarCross

Yes, i agree that your post was a misrepresentation.

And your emotional reaction to communists is not an argument.

As far as I can tell, you have no argument as to why racist speech and other forms of hate speech should be protected.

——————————

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Define "attack" in this context.

Would comedic gestures and generalizations (whether true or not) be considered "attacks,"

Is attack exclusively used in reference to explicitly or implicitly inciting violence?


I was fairly certain you would keep discussing definitions and ignoring the actual argument.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

I have no problems copying and pasting things from a dictionary for you.

Please note that this just supports the claim that there is no real argument to protect racist and hate speech.
#14878364
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was fairly certain you would keep discussing definitions and ignoring the actual argument.


An argument's validity can only be properly assessed via the use of precise definitions.

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

: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words a politician verbally attacked by critics


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 Evolution Fraud

You should not need my help, since you are an ele[…]

@Verv , yes, most of that post is formatted as i[…]

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record[…]

The Outrage Exchange

Also, I'm actually in Hong Kong and while I've av[…]