A limit to freedom of speech? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15191632
[Quoting myself from another source:]

"We have witnessed the phenomenon of 'conservative' AM radio talk show hosts poo-pooing the Covid-19 viral pandemic and, in some instances, making statements which have the effect of deterring people from taking the freely available vaccines. It seems statistically probable that some listeners, believing the vaccines to be either ineffective or dangerous, have foregone them, contracted the disease and died. Thus far, there has been no sign that these radio talk show hosts are liable for anything.

"Now consider if a talk show host poo-pooed the insulin shots that some take to control their diabetes. Would this still come under the umbrella protection of freedom of speech?

"The difference between the two scenarios is one of probability of death."

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15191762
I hope I don't derail your thread. However ---
1] Canada by law doesn't let people use "hate speech".
2] The US by law doesn't let people ---
. . a] Threaten the President's life.
. . b] Advocate overthrowing the Gov. or the Constitution.
. . c] To this list I suggest that the US add, advocating any ideology that the US fought a war to eradicate that resulted in the deaths of 100K US servicemen. This would include Nazism and Negro slavery. I would extend the slavery thing to include advocating making or keeping any race less equal under the law.
. . d] As for other hate speech, I'm on the fence.
Last edited by Steve_American on 23 Sep 2021 03:19, edited 1 time in total.
#15191763
Freedom of speech ALWAYS has limitations. There has to be, as speech can get people to do horrible things if it's allowed to be free from repurcussions.

Canada balances free speech well, I think. Our hate speech laws apply when people are trying to spur people to violence and discrimination.
#15191771
Except 'hate speech' and 'incitement to violence' are conflated for political ends in the public space, leading to targeted censorship. Even general statements not targeted at any individual sind verbotten.

Example: 'Fat people smell, lose weight fatties you will be healthier and you won't stink' in a public forum is not incitement to violence, but it will get you arrested for hate crimes against a protected group in Canada or the UK. Then you run into the endless issues of protected groups and protected topics.
Last edited by Igor Antunov on 23 Sep 2021 04:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15191772
Igor Antunov wrote:Except 'hate speech' and 'incitement to violence' are conflated for political ends in the public space, leading to targeted censorship. Even general statements not targeted at any individual sind verbotten.

Example: 'Fat people smell, lose weight fatties you will be healthier and you won't stink' is not incitement to violence, but it will get you arrested for hate crimes against a protected group in Canada or the UK. Then you run into the endless issues of protected groups and protected topics.


Please provide evidence for this claim.
#15191775
Igor Antunov wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/01/fat-shaming-cards-tube-overweight-haters-ltd-police
https://web.archive.org/web/20100510150 ... ammond.htm
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... s-14543694


The UK is irrelevant to @Godstud’s claims.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.4403577


So, when the authors specifically discussed having one of their fans beat two women to death (the women are both named in the text), you are assuming that this could not possibly be construed as an actual incitement to violence targeted at women.

Why do you think these threats or aspirations of misogynistic violence were not actually bigotry but instead were just normal talk that were targeted for censorship?

https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arres ... violation/


He was arrested for violating a court order. He was not arrested for hate speech or inciting violence. This is irrelevant to your claims.
#15191776
Pants-of-dog wrote:The UK is irrelevant to @Godstud’s claims.



So, when the authors specifically discussed having one of their fans beat two women to death (the women are both named in the text), you are assuming that this could not possibly be construed as an actual incitement to violence targeted at women.

Why do you think these threats or aspirations of misogynistic violence were not actually bigotry but instead were just normal talk that were targeted for censorship?

He was arrested for violating a court order. He was not arrested for hate speech or inciting violence. This is irrelevant to your claims.


It's all relevant.

The court order itself stems from these hate speech laws.

Now explain to me how a man teaching a dog to do the nazi salute is hate speech.
#15191782
Lol @ Igor expecting people to engage with him when all he does is troll :lol:

@Torus34 Do you think the people who criticised Thalidomide deserve to be punished? Who gets to decide if your complaints are valid or not?
#15191815
Steve_American wrote:I hope I don't derail your thread. However ---
1] Canada by law doesn't let people use "hate speech".
2] The US by law doesn't let people ---
. . a] Threaten the President's life.
. . b] Advocate overthrowing the Gov. or the Constitution.
. . c] To this list I suggest that the US add, advocating any ideology that the US fought a war to eradicate that resulted in the deaths of 100K US servicemen. This would include Nazism and Negro slavery. I would extend the slavery thing to include advocating making or keeping any race less equal under the law.
. . d] As for other hate speech, I'm on the fence.


Hi, Steve_American!

No, you haven't derailed anything. The United States is possibly unique in the current interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Speech which is legally protected here would net a fine or imprisonment in many other countries.

There's an excellent book available on the First Amendment by Mr. Floyd Abrams. He covers, among many other facets, how speech is regulated in a number of countries.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Last edited by Torus34 on 23 Sep 2021 12:03, edited 1 time in total.
#15191817
@Torus34 The 1st amendment only applies to congress interfering with freedom of speech.

You still can't just say anything you want. There are slander laws. Laws against issuing threats, etc., and you can't scream, "Fire!", in a packed theatre.


Sheeesh! Americans don't even know their own Constitution! :knife:
#15191825
Godstud wrote:@Torus34 The 1st amendment only applies to congress [sic] interfering with freedom of speech.

You still can't just say anything you want. There are slander laws. Laws against issuing threats, etc., and you can't scream, "Fire!", in a packed theatre.


Sheeesh! Americans don't even know their own Constitution! :knife:


Hi, Godstud!

You are correct in asserting that many Americans are not privy to the Constitution of the United States of America. Even some of those who quote from it seem unaware of the vast body of case law that appends.

As luck would have it, I'm aware of the specific restrictions placed upon our freedom of speech. Our present interpretation can be traced back to the start of the 20th century. Prior to that, it wasn't that much of a burning issue.

Meanwhile, you might find wry enjoyment in considering federal laws dealing with treason and a really strict interpretation of the First Amendment.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15191849
Right now I am not sure I want there to be any limits on freedom of speech.

I mean obviously you shouldnt be allow to threaten people, but that seems to be a crime in itself to me, but sure it could be considered a limit on freedom of speech.

But I am against all kind of limitations of "hate speech", "encouraging revolution", advocating dangerous ideologies, and so on.
#15191850
Igor Antunov wrote:It's all relevant.

The court order itself stems from these hate speech laws.

Now explain to me how a man teaching a dog to do the nazi salute is hate speech.


Again, I am not discussing the UK.

Now, tell me how asking for a reader to violently attack two women is not inciting violence against women.

If you cannot, I assume you will drop your claim that hate speech laws in Canada are used to target dissidents.
#15191900
I think limits to free speech need to be as absolutely minimal as possible, like clearly advocating or threatening violence.

Misinformation of the current era provides an interesting situation. it's dangerous to spread false claims, it's also dangerous to use the law to prevent people from spreading views that aren't popular or generally accepted...because there may be times when they're right. Fining or jailing "heretics" is something they do in repressive countries. The UK is turning back into an autocracy when it comes to speech.

I suggest when it comes to vaccines and medical advice people should listen to their doctors or medical authorities and not half-baked news sources.

Some on the left and right do not care about free speech, they only care about their interests. The left used to be ones fighting for free speech in media regarding "offensive" expression in music, film comic books, video games, radio, and other media, but now some on the left are trying to restrict speech they don't like. On the flip side, some of the right used to be against free speech by censoring those things mentioned, but now they are free speech supporters. Hypocrite tyrants.
#15192009
Well I am 100% behind freedom of speech and although you should have total freedom to say what you like, what you say should adhere to the law. The same way you have freedom to buy a kitchen knife, you can't just start stabbing people because of that freedom. Speech is the same. If you are spouting lies on the radio and that is detrimental to others safety, that should also be punished legally. I know you can't do that in the UK as we have broadcasting standards with OFCOM. If America has broadcasting standards, then they should use them also I guess. :hmm:
#15192104
B0ycey wrote:Well I am 100% behind freedom of speech and although you should have total freedom to say what you like, what you say should adhere to the law. The same way you have freedom to buy a kitchen knife, you can't just start stabbing people because of that freedom. Speech is the same. If you are spouting lies on the radio and that is detrimental to others safety, that should also be punished legally. I know you can't do that in the UK as we have broadcasting standards with OFCOM. If America has broadcasting standards, then they should use them also I guess. :hmm:

Sir, you need to totally rethink this post.
1st you are for totally free speech.
Then you are for allowing laws that restrict free speech.

So, which one wins out in your mind.

I proposed a standard on which it would be possible to stamp out speech by Nazis that advocates Nazi ideals. Like "Jews will not replace us." This standard would make it a crime to circulate a petition calling for slavery to be allowed again in the US. Some HS students in Miss. did exactly that in the last few weeks, and didn't get punished except maybe a wrist slap.

IMHO, such laws are now necessary, because the internet allows a few nut cases to find like minded people and live in their mind set bubble. This seed can then sprout into a problem.
. . . I can think of a few more things that ought to be suppressed at the very beginning before they can become a seed and then sprout. I don't want to list them because some are so disgusting that I don't want to upset the lurkers here. One example may be OK, I don't think that we need to allow people to call for a return of the religion of the Aztec people, that was stamped out by the Spanish in Mexico in the 1500s.
. . . The problem is how do we just limit such laws to those few things that almost everyone agrees on, and have agreed on through deep time. And even there, women's rights are an exception, in that just about every civilization since writing was invented (until at least the 1900s) has believed that women were 2nd class humans. The only exception might be the Minoan culture of pre-Greek Crete. But we can't read their writing yet, AFAIK. While there has never been a full on Matriarchy, there have been Matrilineal cultures where women were equal to men. This system was fairly common among cultures that gardened without cattle and plows. OTOH, cultures that lived off their animals and didn't grow plants were almost always patrilineal.
. . . I had a friend in college who thought that all civilized cultures were a result of a pastoral tribe invading and taking over a gardening tribe with its land and crops, and so fusing the 2 ways of life into one. All of this would have happened 2000 years or more before writing, so we just don't have any good evidence.
#15192110
Governments in the west have been delegating censorship to private companies, then guiding the prevailing narrative via the media. This has led to a censorship regime like no other. It extends to the private home and the many activities possible therein.

This is worse than outright government censorship because it dilutes responsibility and silences all opposition even more comprehensively (it is all pervasive, many of these social platforms are as ubiquitous as utilities because they are so pervasive when it comes to finding and keeping a job or social circle). The censorship is so complete it has no centralized, organized body. It quickly self perpetuates and the guiding hand is all but invisible.

When you no longer truly know who is censoring you and why, who is guiding your representative public servants and why, who is guiding your banks or foreign policy; that's when you get closest to an absolute socioeconomic dystopia.

The west is further along on this path to absolute corporate dystopia than any other civilization.
Peking at bubbles

You clearly believe that the average wage in 196[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

Satellite observations confirm that less heat is e[…]

Oriental Madness: MOSCOW WANTS BALTIC STATES TO C[…]

As it happens, the battle has occurred at a time […]