SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Sama-81]

You're shifting goalposts from "all public speech" to "political meetings", and trying to use a restriction on speech in ONE country as if it's universally relevant to the concept of free speech.

Neither of those are really defensible.

I'm shifting nothing. I used political meetings as an example (which I believe I made clear?) since it fit the thread; I'm perfectly content to use another one, if you so prefer (maybe religious service? lectures?), or to quite simply not use examples at all. I never suggested that this law encompasses John Doe randomly walking by the square rambling, but this is by no means a law that only refers to a particular type of public speech, such as political meetings. That is simply not true, and your accusation lacks merit, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, as I also stated, this is not about one singular country; I simply chose to use Sweden as an example, since I, quite naturally, know the laws of that country particularly well (which, however, doesn't mean that I'm entirely limited to that country either). I'm perfectly happy to, like above, relinquish that particular example if you so prefer. Naturally, that would also mean that the US and/or Canada isn't a viable example either, however. In terms of free speech as a concept, that is.

[Annoying]

shouting is harmful.

I'm not really in this conversation, but in what way is shouting harmful? Unless you mean something like yelling into someone's ear loud enough to hurt their eardrum or something.

[nextormento]

I'm not really in this conversation, but in what way is shouting harmful? Unless you mean something like yelling into someone's ear loud enough to hurt their eardrum or something.

In whatever manner Endus' rationalization goes (what rationalization you use to set that as off limits).
If fighting words incite violence, shouting incites violence.
It's only a reflection on the fundamentalist framing that Endus is taking: that shouting is just another kind of speech. It is a kind of speech, but not just that, for the very act of shouting, independently of the content of the shouting thereof, can do harm.
[fighting words] by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Same goes for shouting. It's only a matter of defining it well and narrowly.

The problem is we can't catalog which words exactly are fighting words, as we can't exactly pin what level, degree or manner of shouting incites violence -courts be damned if we objectively did-. Framing shouting as just speech is a poor abstraction clashing with how reality functions: because shouting, by itself, easily incites a breach of the peace.

[Endus]

The framing is not misleading in the slightest. It's just fundamentally opposed to your pseudolibertarian laissez-faire approach.
Your framing, on the other hand raises some questions on consistency:
Leaving our right to equality, that we all share before the law, to its own devices effectively undermines some demographics. Do you think AA restricts freedom of association?.

Oh, I see, you mean ideological consistency across multiple unrelated subjects, according to some arbitrary standard you've invented and want to pretend I've avowed.

For what it's worth, I don't think affirmative action programs have had effective long-term results. I think they were an administratively "easy" fix, but no, I don't ideologically support nor defend them. I agree with the principles which motivate them, however. So I'd support programs that approach the same issue from a different direction, and don't raise similar issues (and also have greater long-term results).

As long as we're talking about quota-type affirmative action, at least, since the term's somewhat broader than that.

Barring harmful speech is something we've done since the beginning of it all. Be it fighting words in the US, or the broader hate peach legislation we have in many European counties or Canada. Does barring hate peach regulation restrict freeze peach?. I expect you to say it doesn't. Rightfully so, because that is not protected, and never was meant to be. Alas, what rationalization you use to set that as off limits is essentially the same that applies to shouting. Is it because of the harm principle?: shouting is harmful.

Again, a false equivalence on your part. Hate speech is banned in Canada because the content of that speech is an explicit call to harm, and that violates the harm principle. It's not just stuff like "I hate black people SO MUCH"; that wouldn't be classified as actionable hate speech. It wouldn't even if you used racial slurs. It only crosses that line when you start advocating genocide and the like, or you're spreading deliberate propaganda whose purpose and intent is to foment widespread hatred against the group. That's where it crosses into violating the harm principle.

Shouting doesn't, at any level, unless you're shouting so loudly that you're causing actual damage to someone's ears, in which case that's actionable in its own right.

I'm shifting nothing. I used political meetings as an example (which I believe I made clear?) since it fit the thread; I'm perfectly content to use another one, if you so prefer (maybe religious service? lectures?), or to quite simply not use examples at all. I never suggested that this law encompasses John Doe randomly walking by the square rambling, but this is by no means a law that only refers to a particular type of public speech, such as political meetings. That is simply not true, and your accusation lacks merit, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, as I also stated, this is not about one singular country; I simply chose to use Sweden as an example, since I, quite naturally, know the laws of that country particularly well (which, however, doesn't mean that I'm entirely limited to that country either). I'm perfectly happy to, like above, relinquish that particular example if you so prefer. Naturally, that would also mean that the US and/or Canada isn't a viable example either, however. In terms of free speech as a concept, that is.

I'm not familiar with Swedish laws on the subject, but are you saying that nobody's legally allowed to run around shouting and protesting anything at any time? Because if so, I'd take issue with that as an attack on free speech principles. And if not, you're really using a very niche case in exactly the way that I was suggesting.

In whatever manner Endus' rationalization goes (what rationalization you use to set that as off limits).
If fighting words incite violence, shouting incites violence.

Again, the difference is that fighting words incite violence through their content. And they're legally allowed to be spoken, for that matter. In the USA, it just means that (theoretically; this hasn't been used in decades, as far as I know) you can use that defense to justify your assault of the speaker, for inciting you.

And that's based on the content of the speech, not the volume, which is all that shouting involves.

It's only a reflection on the fundamentalist framing that Endus is taking: that shouting is just another kind of speech. It is a kind of speech, but not just that, for the very act of shouting, independently of the content of the shouting thereof, can do harm.
[fighting words] by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Same goes for shouting. It's only a matter of defining it well and narrowly.

It's a false equivalence. Literally the only distinction between shouting and talking is volume. Is any use of a megaphone a breach of free speech? Any musical act that uses speakers? No? That's because you're making a silly argument.

[Deleted]

I'm not familiar with Swedish laws on the subject, but are you saying that nobody's legally allowed to run around shouting and protesting anything at any time? Because if so, I'd take issue with that as an attack on free speech principles. And if not, you're really using a very niche case in exactly the way that I was suggesting.

You are not allowed to act in a disruptive manner, this goes for public meetings, religious ceremonies, weddings and so on. It isn't specific to just meetings. If you are just there to disrupt a meeting, a religious ceremony or a wedding or such things then you can be convicted for it.

You can launch a counter-protest but you are not allowed to disrupt the other protesters by making people unable to hear them, that's illegal.

[nextormento]

Oh, I see, you mean ideological consistency across multiple unrelated subjects, according to some arbitrary standard you've invented and want to pretend I've avowed.

Your abstraction is an arbitrary standard and so is any abstraction. Yours just happens to clash massively with reality.
Freedom of association is very much related to freeze peach. Your ideological consistency, or lack thereof, is in question, yes: because those two concepts are fundamentally related.

fighting words incite violence through their content.
It's a false equivalence. Literally the only distinction between shouting and talking is volume.

Literally the only difference between "negro", "nigger", "colored", "poc", or whatever fancies our likes today, is an arbitrary arrangement of sounds.
Intonation has meaning. To boot people can yell "fire" in a crowded theater with or without consequence depending on different inflection, context and, yes, volume.
Volume has meaning in itself. We've socially constructed "nigger" to be hideous -not harmful-; and so we can construct volume to be so. Once we're set on how that hideousness translates into actual harm, we can process volume through the exact same abstraction.

It's not even an equivalence, false or otherwise, but the only consistent outcome of your fundamentalist approach.


I'll note that "hate propaganda" is the Canadian abstraction. Over here we're way more lax than that, to the point that apology of, say, terrorism, without incitement, classifies.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with the principles which motivate [AA], however.

Exactly.
And we're back to endorsing principles of fairness.

[Endus]

Literally the only difference between "negro", "nigger", "colored", "poc", or whatever fancies our likes today, is an arbitrary arrangement of sounds.
Intonation has meaning. To boot people can yell "fire" in a crowded theater with or without consequence depending on different inflection, context and, yes, volume.

You just contradicted yourself.

You can't claim that words are "arbitrary arrangements of sounds" and then claim intonation has meaning but not the sounds being intoned.

Volume has meaning in itself. We've socially constructed "nigger" to be hideous -not harmful-; and so we can construct volume to be so. Once we're set on how that hideousness translates into actual harm, we can process volume through the exact same abstraction.

This simply isn't true. There are plenty of cases of non-harmful shouting. Like cheering a football victory. And many negative shouts are criticisms, but NOT "harmful" in any functional sense, and you're conflating those two without any justification.

[nextormento]

You just contradicted yourself.

You can't claim that words are "arbitrary arrangements of sounds" and then claim intonation has meaning but not the sounds being intoned.

I'm claiming they all do: meaning is arbitrary. It's collective whim on a really long iteration through generations and history.
Arbitrary arrangement of sounds have meaning, and so does intonation. And volume.

There are plenty of cases of non-harmful shouting.

we can construct
we can process

It's you the one excluding volume from having meaning. It's you the one saying shouting is just volume.
If shouting is just volume, "nigger" is just a sound. They clearly aren't just that, but you're denying the meaning of one of the two, to fit your pseudo-libertarian abstraction and your laissez faire approach to speech.

[Sama-81]

I'm not familiar with Swedish laws on the subject, but are you saying that nobody's legally allowed to run around shouting and protesting anything at any time? Because if so, I'd take issue with that as an attack on free speech principles. And if not, you're really using a very niche case in exactly the way that I was suggesting.

Of course not, and I wrote so. It's literally in the very text you quoted. No, I'm talking about public speech, which you claimed I shifted the goalposts away from. Something I didn't do, because the law in question isn't about political meetings (that's still just an example) but rather public speech more or less in general (well, the speech actually doesn't have to take place in a public setting either, but that's a sidetrack). Which by that merit is protected from disruptions and interruptions - obviously, simply speaking in a public place (as for example randomly conversing in a square) is something entirely different and hardly protected. People can yell their merry little hearts out then (well, not if they disturb public order, which they are bound to do if they keep yelling in the middle of the square). That much seems to be rather obvious, actually, and not really in need of clarifying.

I very much doubt that any single person in this thread would want random conversations protected from verbal interruption, and to be frank, I think VERY few people (in this thread or otherwise) would look at public speech in general as "niche". Which would make sense, since it absolutely isn't in the eyes of (as an example) my nations legislative and judicial branches. Not to mention what protected public speech would mean in places like China, or Saudi Arabia. And then we're only talking about the current day.

[Deleted]

You just contradicted yourself.

You can't claim that words are "arbitrary arrangements of sounds" and then claim intonation has meaning but not the sounds being intoned.

Intonation matters more than what words you are using.
Gas the kikes might get a laugh, depending on how dark the audience is.
We need a solution for the Jewish issue - Is more likely to come of as hate speech - even though all the words are completely benign.

[Endus]

Intonation matters more than what words you are using.
Gas the kikes might get a laugh, depending on how dark the audience is.
We need a solution for the Jewish issue - Is more likely to come of as hate speech - even though all the words are completely benign.

Right. So you just directly contradicted your prior statement again. Because what you're describing here is not "intonation". You keep shifting goalposts and contradicting your own argument.

[Truculentt]

Your entire argument about how people "need to let you speak without opposition" and whatnot is exactly that; you're calling for the entire country to be a "safe space" for your views, with all the implications you folks usually heap on that concept.

You're just okay with it in that particular case because it's supporting your preferences. While stomping on the free speech rights of anyone who doesn't agree.

That's a fantastically retarded argument.

Speech requires thought, articulation, a REAL opinion, and most of all comprehension.

Comprehension cannot be achieved without listening, and without comprehension you cannot have an honest opinion.

Belligerently screaming "shame" isn't an exercise of speech (let alone freedom). It's an exercise of asshattary.

Those asshats were sticking their fingers in their ears and moaning like dying cats. They deserved to have their faces stomped in the name of free speech... not because of their arrogance, but because they couldn't formulate a single cohesive thought on their own to argue. They chanted a hashtag.


That's pathetic. Their actions displayed the epitome of ignorance, and that doesn't earn the right to be defined as speech in the English language.


(sarcasm inc)Millennials, by and large, in my opinion, are idiots. I'll entertain their stupidity for as long as I can tolerate, and argue with them.... Because at least the argument requires thought. If there's a legitimate argument - not some bullshit "lalala shame lala derp derp" nonsense, but a real argument - then everyone is being thoughtful. Everyone is forming an opinion. This side argument - this is an exercise of free speech. (end sarcasm)

Now maybe on the off chance I get through to someone? Great. but even if not, I'll continue to come back and argue... because one day they will realize that the argument itself was valuable.

They'll realize that the ability to argue in the first place, was a privileged of free speech, and one of those arguments was their first real expression of the exercise.

[Endus]

That's a fantastically retarded argument.

Speech requires thought, articulation, a REAL opinion, and most of all comprehension.

This is just obviously untrue. You're trying to create an artificially restricted standard that denies the concept of free speech itself.

Would it be "okay" if the US government decided pro-trump opinions didn't count as "real opinions", and banned them throughout the USA? Or would that be an insane infringement of free speech? Because that's your argument in a nutshell.

The entire point of free speech is that it includes all speech, not just that speech that's accepted as "good". If it doesn't protect the speech you don't like, it's not based on the concept of free speech, to begin with.

[Truculentt]

This is just obviously untrue. You're trying to create an artificially restricted standard that denies the concept of free speech itself.

Would it be "okay" if the US government decided pro-trump opinions didn't count as "real opinions", and banned them throughout the USA? Or would that be an insane infringement of free speech? Because that's your argument in a nutshell.

The entire point of free speech is that it includes all speech, not just that speech that's accepted as "good". If it doesn't protect the speech you don't like, it's not based on the concept of free speech, to begin with.

speech
spēCH/Submit
noun
noun: speech; plural noun: speeches
1.
the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.



No thoughts = no speech.

[Deleted]

Right. So you just directly contradicted your prior statement again. Because what you're describing here is not "intonation". You keep shifting goalposts and contradicting your own argument.

Fair i should have clarified that it wasn't 'intonation' but Tone.
still the point stands - Shouting something can make something otherwise innocuous dangerous, as well as numbers of people saying it.
Context matters was the point.

[Endus]

speech
spēCH/Submit
noun
noun: speech; plural noun: speeches
1.
the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.



No thoughts = no speech.

"And feelings". Your own source completely contradicts you.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair i should have clarified that it wasn't 'intonation' but Tone.
still the point stands - Shouting something can make something otherwise innocuous dangerous, as well as numbers of people saying it.
Context matters was the point.

Unless the content of what's being shouted is actionable in itself, this is just wrong.

Chanting death threats, for instance, would be illegal, because death threats are illegal. Shouting something innocuous? Not gonna be illegal, no matter how much you disagree with what's being shouted and want them to stop.

[Truculentt]

"And feelings". Your own source completely contradicts you.

"and" not "or".


I know the youth today isnt fond of thought, but you have to engage both to express yourself in the form of speech.

[Endus]

"and" not "or".

I know the youth today isnt fond of thought, but you have to engage both to express yourself in the form of speech.

Language does not work the way you clearly want it to work. The sentence does not say "both X and Y". If I say "we have ice cream and apple pie for dessert", does that mean you can only have ice cream with apple pie? Or am I listing two things on the list of "things we have for dessert"? English clearly allows for the latter.

You're straight-up wrong, and garbling basic English to try and defend it.

[Alydael]

Where was the violence?


lol 10 seconds of pushing each other? This is violence these days?

Even words are considered violence nowadays. "He cursed! Quick! Everyone run to our "safe place."

remember the credo- "don't speak- you just might possibly offend someone, somehow" -brought to you by SJW's and progressives...

Ahh... the future is sooo bright....

[Truculentt]

Language does not work the way you clearly want it to work. The sentence does not say "both X and Y". If I say "we have ice cream and apple pie for dessert", does that mean you can only have ice cream with apple pie? Or am I listing two things on the list of "things we have for dessert"? English clearly allows for the latter.

You're straight-up wrong, and garbling basic English to try and defend it.

Language does not work the way you clearly want it to work. The sentence does not say "both X and Y". If I say "we have ice cream and apple pie for dessert", does that mean you can only have ice cream with apple pie?
You're straight-up wrong, and garbling basic English to try and defend it.

Very clever... using "have" as both a noun and a verb to rationalize this convoluted analogy

Speech is a noun. The definition is explicit. It is, by definition, a definition. Definite. Distinct. Clear.

You're going off on some wild delusion to undermine the definition of speech.

That's pathetic. Grow up.

Let it go. Accept you were wrong, and learn something here. A good place to start would be the value of speech.