Elderly woman charged with complaining about poopers in street.

[ujx]

Nope. But congrats on continuing to miss the point, and adding "attacking straw men" to your resume.

Please spell it out for me because I am a retarded inbred republican who apparently cannot comprehend vague and ambiguous rhetoric.

[Grimbold21]

If you can't see how an ideology who had the idea that certain people are subhuman and then denies that these people considered subhuman were killed due to their ideology is hurting everyone then I see no point in continuing this.

Of course you don't, because like the Holocaust denier, you entered this conversation with an unwillingness to change your point of view.

You've grounded your feet around the position that these people should have their speech limited and imprisoned for, essentially, their intended ignorance.

[Venant]

I mean, the concept of free speech does exist. It's just not this ridiculous "all speech must be allowed" nonsense that pretty much nobody actually believes, when you dig down into specifics. It's a principle about defending speech unless that speech can be shown to cause specific harms, as with violent threats and slander/libel and, yes, hate speech. They try and use that false principle to defend hate speech, but that argument just doesn't work, because we don't apply it to any of the other forms of speech we all agree shouldn't be freely permitted.

Your argument completely avoids the clear fact that 'violent threats' and 'slander' are easily identifiable, whereas 'hate speech' is ambiguous. How can you have a law with that level of ambiguity? The germans seem to define it as 'incitement to hatred', which is both meaningless and ridiculous. How can an incitement to an emotion be a legal issue?

[Endus]

It doesn't need any defense in a country that isn't afraid of differing opinions, or so obsessed with virtue-signaling that anything which might offend a minority group must not be said.

Anything but direct and credible death threats or imminent incitement to riot must and should be protected.

So child porn is okay, libel and slander should be permitted, verbal frauds are totally fine, etc?

Endus, your authoritarianism of the Left is disgusting.

Is there a reason folks on your side continuously misuse the label "authoritarian"? Enforcing the law is not "authoritarian".

[Freighter]

Of course you don't, because like the Holocaust denier, you entered this conversation with an unwillingness to change your point of view.

I see no reason why I should change.

You've grounded your feet around the position that these people should have their speech limited and imprisoned for, essentially, their intended ignorance.

No, for provoking, attacking or insulting others based on their race or religion.

[Templar 331]

Holocaust denial is explicitly an attack on the people who died from it and those who survived it and their descendants.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=attack

No, it isn't. It's an insult.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=insult

Just because it causes you emotional discomfort doesn't mean you get to treat it like something worst than it is. And because your feelings are hurt shouldn't be grounds for someone to lose a portion of their life behind bars for their ignorance. If you don't want to take the time to educate them then you shouldn't take time from their life. The only ones they are hurting are themselves, not the survivors or descendants. Only themselves.

[Grimbold21]

He is presenting a narrative that is 100% FALSE and incorrect. it is like saying all black people are thugs that murder and deal drugs,

And should we allow child porn to be allowed speech as well where do you draw the line? what outrageous things will you finally start to object to? we know lying about refugees isnt beating the threshold so to speak so what is over the limit for you? when it comes to harming others with LIES?

I've already argued the merits (or lack of) of denialists' arguments. It's their ignorance and stupidity alone.

There are very few instances where i would concede to speech by punishable by law. And even then it would not be the speech itself, but when that turns into action.

Child porn is a situation where unlawful actions are taking place. What's the argument here? Aren't perpetators of child porn and those responsible for showcasing it being persecuted and imprisoned?

[Freighter]

No, it isn't. It's an insult.

It's an attack.

Just because it causes you emotional discomfort doesn't mean you get to treat it like something worst than it is. And because your feelings are hurt shouldn't be grounds for someone to lose a portion of their life behind bars for their ignorance. If you don't want to take the time to educate them then you shouldn't take time from their life. The only ones they are hurting are themselves, not the survivors or descendants. Only themselves.

It doesn't cause me emotional discomfort. I prefer harmony in society above letting people attack others in that manner.

[Berengil]

So child porn is okay, libel and slander should be permitted, verbal frauds are totally fine, etc?



Is there a reason folks on your side continuously misuse the label "authoritarian"? Enforcing the law is not "authoritarian".

Idgaf about libel and slander, lies can be disproven.

Fraud? it's already illegal to defraud people.

As for child porn, see my edited post of the one you quoted.

I don't have a side politically. You'd know that if you had a look at my profile details.

Enforcing the law is authoritarian if that law needlessly restricts freedom.

[Endus]

Sorry, I expect people to have common sense, my bad. I guess I have to spell it out and include everything: libel/slander, child porn, and threats of violence.

It's not about "common sense". You implicitly excluded those things from consideration. Don't blame me because you said something you knew was wrong, and I pointed that out.

Your argument completely avoids the clear fact that 'violent threats' and 'slander' are easily identifiable, whereas 'hate speech' is ambiguous. How can you have a law with that level of ambiguity? The germans seem to define it as 'incitement to hatred', which is both meaningless and ridiculous. How can an incitement to an emotion be a legal issue?

Because it's really not that ambiguous, when you boil it down into any specific nation's definition. Plus, most law is somewhat subjective and up for interpretation. This is exactly why we have judges and lawyers, and a jury of our peers. If the law was clear and without any room for subjective interpretation, we wouldn't need any of them; you'd just tick the boxes and see if the facts resulted in a guilty verdict or not.

You're basically arguing against the entire legal system, at this point. Subjectivity is an integral part of common law's function.

[Grimbold21]

I see no reason why I should change.


No, for provoking, attacking or insulting others based on their race or religion.

And again, we are back to what i initially told you: something can only be perceived as an insult if the receiving party deems it to be so.

Im gonna repeat myself here: you are not able to manage your own emotions and consequently you expect - or apparently - demand that others do it for you, in this case, by lawful punishment.

[Stelio Kontos]

So many of the folks who take this absolutist approach to free speech, and claim they should be free to say absolutely whatever they want to whoever they want at all times with absolutely no consequences are usually the type of folks who enjoy heaping abuse on others. They want to be free to spew hateful, vulgar, or vicious invective and enjoy the fact no one can do anything to them about it. Essentially, many of them are trolls, and of course they want a system where they can act with impunity.

We don't live in an absolutely free society. We can't. Peace is kept by everyone agreeing to give up certain rights, namely the right to retaliate. Now some take advantage of that to purposely antagonize folks they don't like.

Back in the day, you were free to speak as viciously as you wanted to anyone; and they were often free to put an axe in your head.

Why do people think rights should be free of responsibilities?

[Endus]

only an idiot would find some convoluted way to define an actual harmful action as speech. Like talking speech. If some law maker said taking pics of naked kids is speaking verbally with your mouth they are retards and can safely be ignored. I would lobby to change any law calling an action speech.

Are you arguing that the printed word or other forms of artistic expression other than literal vocal sounds don't qualify as "speech" and can therefore be restricted by the government freely and without any protection granted?

Because that seems like a wild divergence from how basically everyone else interprets "speech" in the legal sense.

Idgaf about libel and slander, lies can be disproven.

Fraud? it's already illegal to defraud people.

It's still "just speech"; you're the one arguing it should be allowed, not me.

Enforcing the law is authoritarian if that law needlessly restricts freedom.

1> That's not true. See the Wiki link I included. You're not using the term appropriately.
2> Even if it were, you've included a subjective weasel word that renders your statement meaningless, that I put in bold. Unless we agree about where that line's drawn, your statement means nothing. I'd say it needs to be restricted, you'd say it's needless, and neither of us would be able to prove our subjective opinion to be "more right".

[ujx]

It's not about "common sense". You implicitly excluded those things from consideration. Don't blame me because you said something you knew was wrong, and I pointed that out.



Because it's really not that ambiguous, when you boil it down into any specific nation's definition. Plus, most law is somewhat subjective and up for interpretation. This is exactly why we have judges and lawyers, and a jury of our peers. If the law was clear and without any room for subjective interpretation, we wouldn't need any of them; you'd just tick the boxes and see if the facts resulted in a guilty verdict or not.

You're basically arguing against the entire legal system, at this point. Subjectivity is an integral part of common law's function.

Sigh, why do I bother. When something slips your mind and you forget to mention it does not equal purposely excluding it. I guess you would rather nitpick the mistake than my updated statement?

[Freighter]

And again, we are back to what i initially told you: something can only be perceived as an insult if the receiving party deems it to be so.

If your parents were killed in the holocaust, someone denying that they were killed in it isn't insulting anyone. They're provoking and attacking people. See that there's provoke and attack there too?

Im gonna repeat myself here: you are not able to manage your own emotions and consequently you expect - or apparently - demand that others do it for you, in this case, by lawful punishment.

I do not care about holocaust denial on an emotional level.

[Matchles]

only an idiot would find some convoluted way to define an actual harmful action as speech. Like talking speech. If some law maker said taking pics of naked kids is speaking verbally with your mouth they are retards and can safely be ignored. I would lobby to change any law calling an action speech.

Yup those 9 idiots on the Supreme Court who decided New York v. Ferber on 1st Amendment grounds. Look you are out of your element if you don't think actions constitute speech. Why the hell do you think flag burning is protected speech?

[Endus]

Sigh, why do I bother. When something slips your mind and you forget to mention it does not equal purposely excluding it. I guess you would rather nitpick the mistake than my updated statement?

Your updated statement still relies on a general statement, with a whole bunch of exceptions that you've listed. I'm pointing out that if there are exceptions to that general rule, then that general rule isn't a rule. I already stated this.

[Berengil]

It's pointless to advocate for freedom to hard Left partisans. They value conformity to the "enlightened" social order more than anything else.

Hmmm... that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?

[Deleted]

There are gypsies in Dalarna?

[Matchles]

Let me make this absolutely fucking clear for you semantics warriors who pretend to not understand basic common sense because they think its cute to skirt the real argument. If you think photographing naked kids with your camera, asking kids to get naked, then taking pictures of them, is the action of talking, flapping you lips to make sounds originating in your vocal chords you are a complete and utter moron who dosnt even understand the basic functions of he human body. Take your semantics bull shit and show it up your ass, you cannot debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge common sense.

It isn't arguing semantics when the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that actions are speech. Chill the fuck out, admit you were wrong and move on.