Yes, Let’s Rethink Free Speech

[Ghostpanther]

That's more of a misconduct at work kind of thing.

It is saying words. So freedom of speech has to be defined and controlled to some extent. I think the first amendment is fine as is and the limitations to it are fine. Even hate speech in public should be allowed. But having that freedom does not mean there are no consequences. Words do have power.

[hellhamster]

Kinda funny you say its Orwelian, Because i'm 100% sure that Orwell would probably see the current US regime as moving towards totalitarian/facism.

- - - Updated - - -



meme? You know memes are just jokes right? Did you use the right word?
But yes, we are seeing more calls to ban incitement, which is good, its banned in most western countries anyway, I see no problem with those who want it in the US. But its not my problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

It's not incitement of violence, it's freedom of expression and speech that is put under the microscope.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

It's not incitement of violence, it's freedom of expression and speech that is put under the microscope.

huh? I know what orwellian means.

[Elim Garak]

But if you don't mind, i'll keep my opinion that incitement to violence should not be allowed. Imagine both nazis and Islamic extremist trying to recruit members out in the open? horrible.

Or Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses... oh wait, no need to imagine.
Also recruiting is not a matter of speech it's a matter of association. If the group is illegal (i.e. terrorists) - then recruiting for terrorists should be illegal - if it can be proven that it's recruiting for a terrorist group that is. Outright refusing the freedom of association because you don't like the core idea of the group - is ridiculously dangerous.

[dlhak]

Millions of Muslims felt offended when a danish caricaturist made fun of their prophet ... meh ! it's free speech, there's nothing to do about it.

Neo-nazis and white supremacists rally to express their hate for anyone who is not white ... oh shit ! we have to rethink free speech ...

[Livnthedream]

Millions of Muslims felt offended when a danish caricaturist made fun of their prophet ... meh ! it's free speech, there's nothing to do about it.

Neo-nazis and white supremacists rally to express their hate for anyone who is not white ... oh shit ! we have to rethink free speech ...

Ding ding ding.

This guy gets it!

Inb4 'The west is inherently racist!'

[JohnBrown1917]

Millions of Muslims felt offended when a danish caricaturist made fun of their prophet ... meh ! it's free speech, there's nothing to do about it.

Neo-nazis and white supremacists rally to express their hate for anyone who is not white ... oh shit ! we have to rethink free speech ...

You mean the millions not living in Denmark? Because Denmark has no controll over them.
Being offended and incitement are not the same thing, by the way.

[ejpaints]

I never said the US courts have been consistent ahaha.

But no, there are several exceptions to free speech in the US. Obscenity laws are one example. This is my point: whether you like it or not, the US does not have unqualified free speech.

- - - Updated - - -



How about child pornography? The court has found that that is not covered by free speech either, despite the same argument being used in other porn rulings.

Ready to march in support of people distributing child pornography?

Child pornography is not covered b/c it involves a minor. This extreme form of trying to throw things left field is tiresome.

No one is saying that they support radicals who spew hate speech. People are simply saying it's a slippery slope to try to redefine something based off an opinion. Especially when it comes to radical groups that are so small an pathetic that aside from the occasion when the far left decides to go pick a fight (which they did, let's just be honest here) everyone just points and makes fun of them.

Right now everyone is up in arms over what happened in Charlottesville. I was one of the people wanting to figuratively "hold a pitchfork to a hanging" too until I saw some of the evidence analyzed on video more closely. That car was being attacked with baseball bats before it hit anyone. And it was not speeding when it approached the crowd. I can actually hear the gas being hit directly after a bat smashes out the back lights. The car did speed going backwards out of the crowd. So, at the moment, there does appear to be evidence that what the police are saying about that kid just being scared could be true. It's hard to know b/c as a country, we've already convicted him in our minds.

And over what? A statue. This all started over the removal of a statue. Yes, radical groups showed up to monopolize on the situation, but the statue is what started it. And there were peaceful protesters on both side of that argument.

Everyone needs to take a step back and evaluate themselves right now. There's some serious hypocrisy going on.

[Endus]

No one is saying that they support radicals who spew hate speech. People are simply saying it's a slippery slope to try to redefine something based off an opinion.

1> Claims of a "slippery slope" are so obviously irrational that there's an entire category of fallacy named for that term. You can safely discard pretty much any argument that includes that phrase, unless they're warning you about how icy the ski slopes are today.

2> "Hate speech" isn't defined off opinion, under the law. So that's just wrong, on its face.

[ejpaints]

Why I agree in spirit with your point, there are limits to free speech beyond just libel/slander or direct, credible death threats. Let a Commander in the Armed Forces make a disputing remark about the President in public. Or yourself making one about your boss. See what happens.

It's apparently not common knowledge, so I'll point this out as I see it often. The military does not get to exercise the same liberties of free speech as the civilian population. So you're correct, a General making a disputing remark towards the Commander in Chief won't go well. And while there have been some interesting youtube videos recently of soldiers doing just that, I can tell you this. They all suffered consequences for doing so. It's simply not allowed. Never has been.

- - - Updated - - -

1> Claims of a "slippery slope" are so obviously irrational that there's an entire category of fallacy named for that term. You can safely discard pretty much any argument that includes that phrase, unless they're warning you about how icy the ski slopes are today.

2> "Hate speech" isn't defined off opinion, under the law. So that's just wrong, on its face.

Why? Because you disagree? It's a slippery slope because it will not end with just the things you want changed b/c of your opinions. So, you can dismiss the term all you like, but it will not prevent me from defending the constitution as I have for my entire adult life. And unfortunately, I'm finding myself in a position when I am having to defend the rights of people I despise all because this ignorant younger generation of today didn't pay attention in history class.

[Endus]

Why? Because you disagree? It's a slippery slope because it will not end with just the things you want changed b/c of your opinions.

http://www.softschools.com/examples/..._examples/391/

No, not because I "disagree", because claiming there's a "slippery slope" is an irrational position in the first place; it does not make any logical sense.

So, you can dismiss the term all you like, but it will not prevent me from defending the constitution as I have for my entire adult life. And unfortunately, I'm finding myself in a position when I am having to defend the rights of people I despise all because this ignorant younger generation of today didn't pay attention in history class.

Hate speech legislation wouldn't be an attack of Constitutional rights any more than laws against child pornography or death threats are, already.

As for the "history" argument, some of us paid attention to areas of history you apparently skipped over, like the rise of the Nazi regime and the power of their hateful rhetoric.

[hakujinbakasama]

What I agree with on this subject is well defined in the following...

[ejpaints]

http://www.softschools.com/examples/..._examples/391/

No, not because I "disagree", because claiming there's a "slippery slope" is an irrational position in the first place; it does not make any logical sense.


Hate speech legislation wouldn't be an attack of Constitutional rights any more than laws against child pornography or death threats are, already.

As for the "history" argument, some of us paid attention to areas of history you apparently skipped over, like the rise of the Nazi regime and the power of their hateful rhetoric.

You need to go back and study how the Nazi regime came about again. It actually started with the kind of things you are supporting change for. Hitler started out by getting support from all of the young people who thought he was wonderful. But, go ahead, push for your precious change. Just don't say you weren't warned when you're given gag orders for things you didn't consider to be part of the thing you wanted changed later.

[Endus]

You need to go back and study how the Nazi regime came about again. It actually started with the kind of things you are supporting change for. Hitler started out by getting support from all of the young people who thought he was wonderful. But, go ahead, push for your precious change. Just don't say you weren't warned when you're given gag orders for things you didn't consider to be part of the thing you wanted changed later.

This is just ludicrous nonsense. Hitler didn't push for legislations on hate speech, his rhetoric WAS hate speech, fundamentally.

It's pretty sad to me how so many of you seem to have no faith in our system or values. (Also funny to see you basically pulling the same slippery slope nonsense. "If we don't kill Nazi's now, they'll take over!")

Literally not what I was saying, but hey, if you don't have an argument that works against what I actually said, just make shit up, right?

[Elim Garak]

http://www.softschools.com/examples/..._examples/391/

No, not because I "disagree", because claiming there's a "slippery slope" is an irrational position in the first place; it does not make any logical sense..

That's bullshit and you should know better. Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious.

- - - Updated - - -

This is just ludicrous nonsense. Hitler didn't push for legislations on hate speech, his rhetoric WAS hate speech, fundamentally.

Yeah, Soviets did, after Hitler. dem slopes are slippery.

[hakujinbakasama]

This is just ludicrous nonsense. Hitler didn't push for legislations on hate speech, his rhetoric WAS hate speech, fundamentally.

Literally not what I was saying, but hey, if you don't have an argument that works against what I actually said, just make shit up, right?

The general problem with your assertion is that it ignores a variety of other factors. Equating the "rise of Hitler" to bare only due to existence of free speech is not only asinine it's impossible. Why you and so many others fail to recognize not only societal differences but legal differences which also fundamentally and necessarily created such events time and time again in history I'll never understand.

Hate speech is extremely difficult as it is predicated upon the notion of hurt and offense which are subjective. That's something we consistently try weed out of our laws, thankfully.

My question would be the following to those who support Hate Speech laws. Are you a Liberal or a Populist?

[ejpaints]

This is just ludicrous nonsense. Hitler didn't push for legislations on hate speech, his rhetoric WAS hate speech, fundamentally.



Literally not what I was saying, but hey, if you don't have an argument that works against what I actually said, just make shit up, right?

As I said. Go read up on how Hitler actually came into Power, or enjoy your ignorance of what historical facts actually prove. The German people loved him in the beginning. Like it or not, that isn't a history you can protest to have erased.

[Endus]

And specifically, on this, the courts have already disagreed with you. Many times over.

The courts rule on what the law currently is, not on what the law should be. See, for instance, the Dred Scott case. And Congress can change that. Which was my point.

That's bullshit and you should know better. Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious.

In any case where it isn't, you can establish the direct causal link and don't need to talk about "slippery slopes" in the first place.

My question would be the following to those who support Hate Speech laws. Are you a Liberal or a Populist?

You get that those aren't the only two options, and aren't even opposing viewpoints, right?

As I said. Go read up on how Hitler actually came into Power, or enjoy your ignorance of what historical facts actually prove. The German people loved him in the beginning. Like it or not, that isn't a history you can protest to have erased.

Yes, Hitler was populist. That doesn't work against anything I stated.

[Ahovv]

Putting a couple words in bold and ignoring the rest of the quote isn't the winning argument you think it is.



This is just straight-up not true. There's emotional harm, financial harm, and so forth.

Be specific with "emotional harm."

If I call a random person a nigger should that be illegal because of potential "emotional harm?" What about fat? White? Bitch? What if I laugh at someone?

[hakujinbakasama]

You get that those aren't the only two options, and aren't even opposing viewpoints, right?

On pretty much every political subject, yes.... yes they are.