Hate speech / free speech

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:49 pm

This thread really went to work while I was asleep. But FWIW, on this occasion, I am with TJ.

Another example. On social media a person sends a message to another person telling that other person how worthless he or she is. Foul language, racist and sexist language, and a thoroughly evil message. The victim kills him or herself.

No sound volume issue here, but definite hate speech and a clear cut case of harm being done. Should that person be permitted to send that hate speech under the guise of free speech, without let or hindrance?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:06 pm

Yes.

Otherwise.........society proceeds by the weakest intellects (emotional basket cases) it cocoons.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:15 pm

Bobbo

Coccooning weaker individuals is one of the things that has always established humanity as the most successful large mammal on this planet. It is part of what makes us survive, and it certainly is one of the duties of any civilised nation.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:55 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ---I know it is too easy to get wrapped uped in defending a position, but really, you are making NO SENSE.

1. What is it you think I haven't experienced in my privileged ghetto? If you mean being a child and having a sound truck blare hateful messages to me, you are correct. .... but.... you surely don't mean THAT?---right? I assume you recall my memories of racial animus of Japanese moving away from me and my family on train commutes in Japan. I also have other experiences of being a white minority in some other culture....but I don't see it as relevant. Connect it up if you think personal experience mandates some final conclusion on Free Speech (the LAW IN THE USA) vs Hate Speech being Criminalized elsewhere in the world....... the pro's and the con's????

2. Please pay attention: noise laws, public safety, public free access is about those things. It is NOT to control words. There are no words in the loud decibles of Jack Hammers. Why is the noise assault any more justified just because the noise is made up of words. You do recognize YOUR argument (this aspect of it) is actually in support of Free Speech .... right?

3. Please state you do understand what time, place, and manner restrictions means when it comes to Free Speech/Hate Speech or......that you need to read up on it more. (Hint: you do.)

4. Please understand the issue is not about "bullies" other than as cheap rhetoric you should rise above. THIRD TIME: "THE PROBLEM" of speech you don't like is to understand it is the cost of FREE SPEECH....the market place of ideas ... learning to overcome opposition, to argue your case, to weight the pros and cons, to recognize IN A DEMOCRACY: people will disagree with you. And like all laws meant to protect: Hate crime speech too often is used by those in power to simply PUT IN PRISON...people they don't like....aka: social activists OF EVERY VALUE. You have a very special and erreonous notion (rhetoric==>propaganda) calling someone only trying to speak a message you don't like as being a Bully. MORE THE BULLY: putting you in jail for what you truly believe.

You are approaching the issue as whatever you think Hate Speech is about is extrinsically wrong and that it can be stopped by State Enforced Criminal Laws without any harm that just as likely would be worse that the Hate you wish to banish. Think of Prohibition, drug laws, etc. Get the STate to make such activities illegal....and you give birth to organized crime.

FREE SPEECH. I'll say again: one of the few things the USA has about right. Hate Speech laws making certain ideas criminal to express: a very steep slippery slope if not in the gutter to begin with. Criminalizing bad behavior: save me from the Church Ladies. Man up........and THINK for yourself. If words hurt you that much..... you need to grow up.


1. Yes - that is exactly what I meant - and certainly not acts or speech that made you simply mildly uncomfortable - but rather that which was meant to cause harm and even legitimately fear for your life.

2. Indeed, the construction noise is not intended to cause harm, whereas the words of the hatemonger are. See the difference?

3. Indeed - those same hateful words spoken in private or not in the company of those whom they are intended to harm have insignificant impact - so indeed time and place matter. That said, they are often used to embolden those of feeble mind and character into taking illegal and harmful action, so should not be entirely ignored either.

4. I have no illusions that hate speech laws will completely stop the harm. But doing nothing actually leads to worse outcomes, including murder.

That slippery slope works both ways. I think you missed Orwell`s point entirely – if not addressed early, the evil hatemonger narcissist racists are given leave to implement laws, cook the books, stack the deck, and put into positions of power those who benefit from their existence. Much like where the US is today with the likes of Trump, Pence, and Ryan. I am not talking of criminalizing bad behavior - a trivialization indeed, but rather speech which is intentionally harmful - emotional harm maybe, but harm nonetheless.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Dimebag » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:07 pm

It is a fine line to walk, between a persons right to safety and their rights to freely express themselves. I don't think we should draw the line of freedom of speech at a persons feelings. A wise person once said (pretty recently), 'in order to think, you need to risk being offended'. People don't have the right to not be offended. We protect people from physical harm, yes. But sometimes in order to get an important point across some portion of people may run the risk of taking offence. A further problem is, the apparent damage caused is entirely predicated on the person whom is receiving the speech. That means the offensive nature of the message is not contained in the message itself, but in the receivers interpretation. Some people are highly resilient, others are sensitive flowers who crumble and howl at the slightest of criticisms.

I don't think we should violate something as important as free speech, the only thing standing in the way of tyranny, just to stop a few fragile egos feelings getting hurt.

That's my opinion.

Btw, this sort of thing is already happening, see here:
https://www.sovereignman.com/mad-government/its-now-a-human-right-to-not-be-offended-unless-youre-the-one-whos-offended-22076/

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:13 pm

Dimebag

Those nations with laws prohibiting hate speech are not stopping hurt feelings. They are focussed on more serious harm. You could tell people in my country, or in Britain, that they are being fools without risk of prosecution. That adjective is too mild to be hate speech. Real hate speech is a much more serious act.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:31 am

TJ--you are hung up on the issue and way too sloppy in your thinking:

1. Yes - that is exactly what I meant - and certainly not acts or speech that made you simply mildly uncomfortable - but rather that which was meant to cause harm and even legitimately fear for your life.
Here you muddle up ACTS with SPEECH. I've already said that causing harm and fear for your life is actionable. As Dimebag says when it comes to SPEECH...HARM is created in the mind of the reciever and is too easy to manufacture to control an IDEA that is not desired.

2. Indeed, the construction noise is not intended to cause harm, whereas the words of the hatemonger are. See the difference?
Ha, ha......Jeebus your are being DENSE. In context........its the SIMILARITY of the two that is subject to regulation thereby NOT ALLOWING the sound truck to blast its message into the school. Again...you are totally muddled up.

3. Indeed - those same hateful words spoken in private or not in the company of those whom they are intended to harm have insignificant impact - so indeed time and place matter. That said, they are often used to embolden those of feeble mind and character into taking illegal and harmful action, so should not be entirely ignored either.

You continue your roll: the time and place regulation is RELEVANT to the speech you want to restrict, NOT the speech that is irrelevant to the issue. You aren't doing very well here.

4. I have no illusions that hate speech laws will completely stop the harm. But doing nothing actually leads to worse outcomes, including murder.
Again: you are the only one thinking "nothing" is done in response to Hate Speech. AGAIN===>the correct response to hate speech is MORE SPEECH. Its what "counter protests" are all about. Murder? Ha, ha.....sure. Every possible outcome happens. so, on my side, I'll say if you make Hate Speech illegal then everyone with an idea in their head will be put in prison. Silly. The difference: Murder is Illegal with action being taken to prevent it while Free Speech would be a Jailable Offense. I have no faith you will see the difference given your perfect muddle so far.

5. That slippery slope works both ways. I think you missed Orwell`s point entirely – if not addressed early, the evil hatemonger narcissist racists are given leave to implement laws, cook the books, stack the deck, and put into positions of power those who benefit from their existence. Much like where the US is today with the likes of Trump, Pence, and Ryan. I am not talking of criminalizing bad behavior - a trivialization indeed, but rather speech which is intentionally harmful - emotional harm maybe, but harm nonetheless.
Actually..you almost make a valid point that I often use: there is no level ground...every position on Earth is sloped with a degree of slippery. This is why a slippery slope argument is most often a fallacy and a tool of propaganda. That is why I emPHAsized the slope on this issue was steep and extra slippery as in: not so much a slippery slope as a direct causation. But here you have hamfistedly DEMONSTRATED THE VERY HARM OF HATE SPEECH LAWS: you connect it to Politics and evidently would use such laws instead of having free elections? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Thanks TJ. You make the point.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Coccooning weaker individuals is one of the things that has always established humanity as the most successful large mammal on this planet. It is part of what makes us survive, and it certainly is one of the duties of any civilised nation.
Wut? Where is your data on this???????? Ha, ha. I disagree. You cocoon weak people when they don't have the ability to protect themselves. In Free Speech you protect people by teaching them to think for themselves. You help the very few affected by giving them the tools.....not by restricting everyone else in the world. You don't hobble them by your good intent, you enable them to act on their own.
One of the more odious aspects of Hate Speech laws is that it teaches people to be feeble minded and focusing on their feelings rather than learning how to counter that unwanted speech/IDEAS and become a competent person. You have identified a valid issue.....but your solution is more harmful than the original harm.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Dimebag

Those nations with laws prohibiting hate speech are not stopping hurt feelings. They are focussed on more serious harm. You could tell people in my country, or in Britain, that they are being fools without risk of prosecution. That adjective is too mild to be hate speech. Real hate speech is a much more serious act.

Did you read the statute that was linked? Did you read the provision copied from your link above? YOU may properly think HATE LAWS will be used only in the worst cases that we might all agree on. But not everyone thinks as you do.

I will repeat what I posted you'all may have missed that might be a compromise? have the Legislature specifically identify what is Hateful. NOT leave the assessment to every individual to create their own meaning. I don't know how specific the German anti Holocaust Denial Laws are, but I assume they do a good job of being narrow and enforceable. The effect of Laws, what is legal vs illegal to do, should be clear to anyone who reads them...........NOT AS HERE where we can all disagree as to what they are after. In short: Hate Speech is not about Hurt Feelings......but the laws referenced in this very thread don't make that distinction. We should if we are going to restrict Free Speech.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ--you are hung up on the issue and way too sloppy in your thinking:

1. Yes - that is exactly what I meant - and certainly not acts or speech that made you simply mildly uncomfortable - but rather that which was meant to cause harm and even legitimately fear for your life.
Here you muddle up ACTS with SPEECH. I've already said that causing harm and fear for your life is actionable. As Dimebag says when it comes to SPEECH...HARM is created in the mind of the reciever and is too easy to manufacture to control an IDEA that is not desired.

2. Indeed, the construction noise is not intended to cause harm, whereas the words of the hatemonger are. See the difference?
Ha, ha......Jeebus your are being DENSE. In context........its the SIMILARITY of the two that is subject to regulation thereby NOT ALLOWING the sound truck to blast its message into the school. Again...you are totally muddled up.

3. Indeed - those same hateful words spoken in private or not in the company of those whom they are intended to harm have insignificant impact - so indeed time and place matter. That said, they are often used to embolden those of feeble mind and character into taking illegal and harmful action, so should not be entirely ignored either.

You continue your roll: the time and place regulation is RELEVANT to the speech you want to restrict, NOT the speech that is irrelevant to the issue. You aren't doing very well here.

4. I have no illusions that hate speech laws will completely stop the harm. But doing nothing actually leads to worse outcomes, including murder.
Again: you are the only one thinking "nothing" is done in response to Hate Speech. AGAIN===>the correct response to hate speech is MORE SPEECH. Its what "counter protests" are all about. Murder? Ha, ha.....sure. Every possible outcome happens. so, on my side, I'll say if you make Hate Speech illegal then everyone with an idea in their head will be put in prison. Silly. The difference: Murder is Illegal with action being taken to prevent it while Free Speech would be a Jailable Offense. I have no faith you will see the difference given your perfect muddle so far.

5. That slippery slope works both ways. I think you missed Orwell`s point entirely – if not addressed early, the evil hatemonger narcissist racists are given leave to implement laws, cook the books, stack the deck, and put into positions of power those who benefit from their existence. Much like where the US is today with the likes of Trump, Pence, and Ryan. I am not talking of criminalizing bad behavior - a trivialization indeed, but rather speech which is intentionally harmful - emotional harm maybe, but harm nonetheless.
Actually..you almost make a valid point that I often use: there is no level ground...every position on Earth is sloped with a degree of slippery. This is why a slippery slope argument is most often a fallacy and a tool of propaganda. That is why I emPHAsized the slope on this issue was steep and extra slippery as in: not so much a slippery slope as a direct causation. But here you have hamfistedly DEMONSTRATED THE VERY HARM OF HATE SPEECH LAWS: you connect it to Politics and evidently would use such laws instead of having free elections? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Thanks TJ. You make the point.


I stopped at 2.. thinking you must be drunk. You need to start over - with the very real scenario I presented. No other laws prevent it, no other laws have punished the hate monger free speechers - in their assault on wee kiddies.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:39 pm

Blarring sound trucks in public aimed at school kiddies is ILLEGAL because of the noise level. Doesn't matter what they are saying/playing. Same with jack hammers.

Whats next?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:39 pm

The definition of what is hate speech is normally left to the courts, and they tend to be conservative. In other words, the speech must be truly damaging to result in prosecution. But there are precedents. The courts have ruled against the following forms of extremism. Racist speaking, anti-semitism, anti gay speech etc. Being mildly racist etc will not normally bring serious repercussions, but serious hate will.

The idea that these are overcome by free speech is such an incredibly naive idea. Free speech does not bring back to life someone who has been driven to suicide ! Nor those who die when a nasty bastard is driven by hate speech into committing a mass killing.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:35 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Blarring sound trucks in public aimed at school kiddies is ILLEGAL because of the noise level. Doesn't matter what they are saying/playing. Same with jack hammers.

Whats next?


I do get it that you seemingly think that hate speech is good stuff that only needs to be countered by more speech. Kill Jews!, Kill Muslims!, Kill Chinese!, Kill Koreans! to be countered by exactly what?

Your mothers are syphilitic whores! Your sisters are being raped by your fathers! You will die a horrible death! all just noise - when directed at primary school children for six hours, day after day, or when displayed on placards paraded in front of ethnic businesses? And please don`t stoop to saying these words are illegal under other statutes, since they are not, and hence hate speech laws are unnecessary, except maybe in your ghetto.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:13 pm

With noise levels low, the kiddies won't hear the message unless they pass close by on their way in and out of the school. Once heard, they can ask their teachers "why" and LEARN how to deal with bad ideas and evil people. The very purpose of school. Armed with this new ability not tested and learned otherwise, the kiddies can learn to wrestle with all kinds of ideas.

Now TJ: read and understand the very words you use (did you miss a few days of school?). Hate Speech is NOT "good stuff". The hint is: it's called Hate Speech. Hate speech is, as demonstrated throughout your muddled umbrage: BAD Stuff. It is to be countered by Good Stuff aka: More Speech. I would start with: "Why do you want to Kill <the group of concern>? If these speakers are as muddled up as you are, they might say "Because they make too much Noise".

As stated: Free Speech is pretty well litigated in the USA and we have it about right. Lot's of court cases regarding the Freedom to spount Hate Speech BUT NOT threats of Harm where the statement is more than just speech and represents an actual threat. I don't know if merely Blarring, Quietly stating, or merely carrying a quiet sign saying "Kill etc" is illegal or protected. It might require additional facts making it sometimes yes, sometimes no. for instance: a new group not previously known might get away with it whereas a Nazi group infront of a Catholic Church might get away with it whereas the same group/signs/Sound Truck in front of a Jewish Synagog might get arrested. I don't know but this is the type of balancing that needs to take place if you value free speech and good public order at the same time.

My own view would be that saying, blarring, or carrying a sign that says "Kill....etc" should be illegal. It is an incitement to criminality with near zero speech content. The same "Kill etc" surrounded by a whole bunch of other words and reasons and rational...say The Bible for instance...should be protected speech.

Nuance....................not emotions.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:...My own view would be that saying, blarring, or carrying a sign that says "Kill....etc" should be illegal. ...


Ah, so you do support hate speech laws - good on ya.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:42 am

I said it depends on other facts. A very specific rule that said you can't say, blare, carry a sign that says simply "Kill X" would be tolerable in my view because it is not anti-hate speech defined as some individuals response to it. Rather, it is a specific law passed by majority vote and approved by the Supremes outlawing a very specific narrow set of words. Easy to understand, not subject to variability.

Pros and Cons to all we do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I said it depends on other facts. A very specific rule that said you can't say, blare, carry a sign that says simply "Kill X" would be tolerable in my view because it is not anti-hate speech defined as some individuals response to it. Rather, it is a specific law passed by majority vote and approved by the Supremes outlawing a very specific narrow set of words. Easy to understand, not subject to variability.

Pros and Cons to all we do.


Now now - don`t weasel out of it. The only reason anyone would pass a law criminalizing `Kill xxx` is because those xxx`ers respond negatively to those words.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:43 pm

Again TJ: you aren't reading what is in front of your eyes. It is NOT "those xxx'er respond negatively to those words" but a limited formal and reviewed process. the difference between hate speech and illegal speech. Try to keep up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:49 am

Spewing hogwash does’t make it true. But at least it isn’t hate speech!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:28 am

TJ: you don't see a difference between letting everyone individually decide what is hate speech "to them" vs having an elected body of legislators decide quite specifically and narrowly what speech is not to be permitted?

The first is an open ended assault on Free Speech and the thinking/social policy that flows therefrom. the second is a very narrow exception barely tolerable according to your purity on the issue.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:57 pm

Bobbo

Nothing is totally free except anarchy. Civilisation and the maximising of human welfare for the greater good for the greater number ALWAYS requires some restrictions on people's behaviour. Free speech should not be 100% free in the anarchy sense. It needs some limitations also, to prevent unwarranted harm.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:35 am

Lance: silly to go into the irrelevant sideshoots of the LABEL we put on the issue. As usual: no one but you has said totally free...whatever that means. Ha, ha........you compound this 8th grade insight by saying that anarchy is totally free?
Really? Caught up in your own BS...words being spilled out that have no meaning at all.

"behavior"........as shown repeatedly above: does NOT include free speech/ideas. there ARE LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH: you can't utter false speech, or defamatory speech (a type of false speech) nor speech that incites violations of law.

I wish you guys could hold an idea for longer than 3 minutes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:57 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:... you can't utter false speech, or defamatory speech (a type of false speech) nor speech that incites violations of law. ...


Please clarify - in which ghetto, or dreamworld is this true?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:24 am

Well, the only thing that allows this to make sense, while still incredibly silly, is ..............of course you can "say" false, defamatory and insightful speech....but then get arrested and sued for it.

You are just bloviating now TJ...........if not........just confirm you have never heard/are unaware of/libel and slander laws? False Advertising?? Communications with a Minor for the Purpose of Rape???? conspiracies with no over act?????? Incitement to Riot?????????

Step up your game.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:48 pm

Bobbo

My other common statement is about balance.

Liberty also requires balance. Too much liberty is disaster. Too little is also disaster. Obvious example, too much liberty surrounding gun possession in the USA results in innocents being gunned down by the dozen. Free speech is not different. Certainly we should maximise freedom of speech where that is possible without causing great harm. But a balance is needed, and that balance involves restricting the worst of the hate speech.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:16 pm

Free speech IS balanced....against harm to people by the time, place, manner restructions on LEGAL speech, and the outlawing/actionable categorization of injurious speech identified above.

You are not saying anything new at all.

There is no "great harm" CAUSED by Hate Speech as too often presented. "We should deport all Caucasians back to Europe." Gee...I'm being attacked. As stated above, my response should be limited to asking why that is the case, NOT starting a lawsuit or filing a criminal complaint because my feelings have been hurt. If my feelings are so hurt that I commit suicide over some comment, that also is NOT a great harm....rather, it is a personal defect that needed mental health services as the response....not jail time for someone else.

FREE SPEECH. Whatever harm you think this does without all the other exceptions already been made to it is in my view/value system much better for society than the harm that will unavoidably come from increasing censorship from addled brain people given encouragement to flex their sensitivity.

Again (Third Time, never responded to) the difference is who makes the values we all have to live by? I say I will accept those made by a formal body in very narrow manner. NOT those made by any and everyone that has a butt hurt from some desire not to want to think about the pros and cons that exist to every issue you can think of, including hate speech.

Fascism and Thought Control is a short walk.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:05 pm

Bobbo

Banning hate speech requires a careful definition of what hate speech is.
I doubt that any court would define 'send Caucasians back to Europe ' as hate speech, since such a statement is unlikely to cause harm.

The nations that ban hate speech generally have a good definition, and ban only that which is harmful.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:09 pm

Read the thread above. TJ is happy to apply Hate Speech concept to Political Parties.

contra: whatever YOU THINK is the proper use of Hate Speech..........as stated: OTHER PEOPLE WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU. Once you start to control speech based on what individual emotions are..... you have a wild fire among gasoline cans. Just look at how wide open and discretionary the language is of the hate speech standards linked to above.

Please give an example of a statement you think should be banned under Hate Speech Laws
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:48 pm

Examples include incitement to violence based on race, or sexual orientation, or gender, religion, ethnic origin or similar.

What is or should be banned is that which leads to great harm. This is rife in the USA where mass shootings are commonplace.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:59 pm

Why don't you ACTUALLY ENGAGE the argument at any given point at all AND STOP your consistent pattern of rarely being direct and responsive?

Give an example of what you consider to be hate speech......not categories into which it would fall.

I told you why I don't think Hate Speech results in Great Harm. Your response ignores this and merely repeats you think it does great harm. Please identify what that harm is that should be given cognizance and why that is so Great.

Try...................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:27 pm

Bobbo

You are ignoring reality.
Hate speeches have ALREADY led to great harm. Thousands of suicides due to people being told they are worthless. Mass killings due to hate speech. Timothy McVeigh, who set the Oklahoma bomb, was influenced by right wing hate speech.

An exact example ? "Kill the Jews." Which Hitler said and his Nazi followersdid.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:57 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Read the thread above. TJ is happy to apply Hate Speech concept to Political Parties. ...


Only in your warped mind Bobbo - as you intentionally misinterpret and extend in weird ways. Of course if a member of a Political Party spews hate speech, then I see no reason to exclude the perps simply because they do it under the banner of a political party, religion, or some other association.

For clarity - when a candidate on the stump at a rally says `Kill xyz`ers`, I see no reason to exclude them from the consequences of their hate speech, simply because they are a politician. (Now let`s see how you misinterpret that…)

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:00 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well, the only thing that allows this to make sense, while still incredibly silly, is ..............of course you can "say" false, defamatory and insightful speech....but then get arrested and sued for it.

You are just bloviating now TJ...........if not........just confirm you have never heard/are unaware of/libel and slander laws? False Advertising?? Communications with a Minor for the Purpose of Rape???? conspiracies with no over act?????? Incitement to Riot?????????

Step up your game.


Oh, I see - where those laws exist... again, in your ghetto... ;)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:10 am

TJ: "Kill X'ers" is I think already illegal as incitement to violence/crime in most places.

Anti Libel and Slander laws are also in every country with a legal code that I can think of, ghetto or otherwise.

You don't need to advocate Hate Speech laws to address these issues: ITS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Take the blue pill.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:15 am

Lance: "Kill the Jews" is also illegal as stated above several times. IOW: Not Hate Speech per se as it has been against the law for a long time and is not based on any individual being made to feel distress or threatened. Cops can arrest you for the speech based on violation of law as the damage to society is understood.

You two are missing an OBVIOUS distinction......several of them.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:24 am

Hate speech, of course, does not have to involve advocating murder. Simply lying about a group, and thus arousing hate, can be bad enough. Hitler's minions did this also, with regard to Jews, especially about things like being slum landlords and financial exploiters. Even Trumps routine blaming of Mexicans for taking American jobs can be regarded as hate speech. Right wing neoNazi groups respond to those forms of hate speech in seriously nasty ways. A not uncommon hate speech in the USA by racists is to tell people that black guys are lusting after white women. (Quite true, of course, but so are all the white guys.)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:33 am

I agree: thats all very hateful speech, the speakers of same should be shunned and preached against. I would hate to see such speech made illegal.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: "Kill X'ers" is I think already illegal as incitement to violence/crime in most places.

Anti Libel and Slander laws are also in every country with a legal code that I can think of, ghetto or otherwise.

You don't need to advocate Hate Speech laws to address these issues: ITS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Take the blue pill.


Except where it isn`t. Hence the need for hate speech laws. :roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13940
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:08 am

Name where libel, slander, incitement to murder is not illegal...............I'll wait.

......and in those totally failed societies...the law needed would be anti-libel, slander, and incitement to murder NOT HATE SPEECH.

You still refuse to note the distinction.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9059
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Hate speech / free speech

Postby TJrandom » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Name where libel, slander, incitement to murder is not illegal...............I'll wait.

......and in those totally failed societies...the law needed would be anti-libel, slander, and incitement to murder NOT HATE SPEECH.

You still refuse to note the distinction.


Well, when `standing` is taken into consideration, Japan for one. Without naming a specific victim, but rather spewing hate speech against a class of people at a school or business, from a practical standpoint our defamation laws have no meaning. Which is why our right-wing nationalist sound trucks get by with spewing their hate speech. Surely Japan is not a failed society? And before you claim that we need to change our defamation laws, please do tell me - why do you think it is in your purview to say what laws are needed, as opposed to the nationals of Japan, or any other country for that matter?

As for incitement to murder – even in the US this seems to be a rather grey area. But again, in Japan simply saying `Murder xyz`ers` - a class of people, and not a specific person, brings no legal consequence.

Now, I don`t know about other countries, and what forms hate speech takes there, nor what their hate speech legal solutions are – but I rather doubt that most are failed societies. Different of course from your ghetto, but surely not deserving of the epitaph delivered from on high by you.


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest