Yes, Let’s Rethink Free Speech

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, all of those links where totally just misogynerd shitlords. Makes perfect sense. Quite the argument that you have there.

Well I try when someone completely unable to make an argument or demonstrates that goes to a HEY look here at this link, because they aren't parroting enough nonsene to deflect their lack of knowledge to be able to attempt to articulate, so for you it makes sense.

[Livnthedream]

Well I try when someone completely unable to make an argument or demonstrates that goes to a HEY look here at this link, because they aren't parroting enough nonsene to deflect their lack of knowledge to be able to attempt to articulate, so for you it makes sense.

That link demonstrates rather well why what you are espousing isn't working in practicality. Especially the Facebook nonsense.

[Doctor Amadeus]

That link demonstrates rather well why what you are espousing isn't working in practicality. Especially the Facebook nonsense.

What face book nonsense, what are you talking about, see this is what happens when you attempt to dialog with people, you make mistakes and typos you know you show yourself for being human and not someone simply peddling parroted talking points.


Now what about facebook specitically?

Facebook is a private company, there censoring speech has as much to do with a business model and sponsor local bullshit concerning nut jobs who want to sign people up for lift coaching.

Or Multilevel Market Spandex pants from china

[Livnthedream]

What face book nonsense, what are you talking about, see this is what happens when you attempt to dialog with people, you make mistakes and typos you know you show yourself for being human and not someone simply peddling parroted talking points.


Now what about facebook specitically?

Facebook is a private company, there censoring speech has as much to do with a business model and sponsor local bullshit concerning nut jobs who want to sign people up for lift coaching.

Or Multilevel Market Spandex pants from china

Well when you refuse to look at links because [reasons] it makes it even harder to have a conversation.

You spouting points as though they will work, them actually being tested/put into action and then failing, and you trying desperately to handwave the examples makes you look like the ignorant/douchecanoe.

What you state sounds great in theory, but runs into numerous 'catches' in practice. Like minority groups 'reclaiming' slurs.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well when you refuse to look at links because [reasons] it makes it even harder to have a conversation.

You spouting points as though they will work, them actually being tested/put into action and then failing, and you trying desperately to handwave the examples makes you look like the ignorant/douchecanoe.

What you state sounds great in theory, but runs into numerous 'catches' in practice. Like minority groups 'reclaiming' slurs.

You haven't made a fucking argument or reason for me to do so other than, See this thing here [LINK]

You can test anything that I have said, and I don't even need links. And that Theory is much like all the other ones you might dismiss as well with a LINK like the earth being round evolution, gravity.

I don't need a fucking link to prove any of those either.

[Livnthedream]

You haven't made a fucking argument or reason for me to do so other than, See this thing here [LINK]

You can test anything that I have said, and I don't even need links. And that Theory is much like all the other ones you might dismiss as well with a LINK like the earth being round evolution, gravity.

I don't need a fucking link to prove any of those either.

You mean outside of my telling you numerous times that YOUR TACTICS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND FAILED HERE IS PROOF?!

[Doctor Amadeus]

You mean outside of my telling you numerous times that YOUR TACTICS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND FAILED HERE IS PROOF?!

Well that is called history, what specifically do you mean, I have no doubt that is probably a bitter pill of reality to swallow under the circumstance which tactic was that, testing to see who knows witchcraft?

[Livnthedream]

Well that is called history, what specifically do you mean, I have no doubt that is probably a bitter pill of reality to swallow under the circumstance which tactic was that, testing to see who knows witchcraft?

Try reading the link, you may learn something.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Try reading the link, you may learn something.

Haha you obviously didn't learn shit because that is why you fucking posted the link. No you can click on my link!

[Mistame]

You posted what qualfied as hate speech and then you specifically did so thinking it would explain threatening speech

We've been through this. I've already posted the definition of "hate speech".

Also: No offense, but you need proof read what you've typed before posting or at least make sure it makes sense, as all I'm seeing is incoherent rambling.

Hate speech be offensive but not everything offensive is hate speech, who decides that mostly people who have objectivity and a sense of being to differentiate between using language to try to harm and kill someone because of their race, or simply speaking their mind concerning an opinion.

Hand waving a clearly laid out difference between Hate Speech and Offensive Speech, this is simply a dishonest response from you.

The difference between "hate speech" and "offensive speech" is whether or not it fits under the aforementioned factors (race, etc). What determines whether or not something is "hate speech" is the definition.

You are right what I meant to say is that the same groups Alt-Right Neo Nazi White supremacist have a history with this hate speech that has been around for hundreds of years.

Still unclear as to what the point of this is supposed to be or why you think it's relevant.

Yes, I know this, and this if your own argument that you are defeating in trying to suggest the two are in any way the same thing, with threatening or Hate Speech. I mean it really does sound like it happening, but when you finally honestly figure out Hate Speech is not just threatening Speech or Unpopular Speech.

Yes, they're different. But they're both "hate speech".

YOU are the only conflating that it is netted under Unpopular SPEECH or OFFENSIVE speech IT IS NOT. It is also not covered by simple threatening speech.

I'm not conflating anything. "Hate speech" covers verbal attacks, insults and threats based on race, etc, etc. "Hate speech" is not illegal unless it involves something that's already illegal, like threats.

Maybe I should simplify it for you:

Hate Speech:
- Verbal Attacks
- Insults
- Threats

Illegal Speech:
- Explicit Incitement (I believe it also covers "FIRE!")
- Threats

Two separate and distinct lists. Only one of the former exists in the latter. And that's how it should be.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We've been through this. I've already posted the definition of "hate speech".

Also: No offense, but you need proof read what you've typed before posting or at least make sure it makes sense, as all I'm seeing is incoherent rambling.

All that it requires to sustain is acceptance of the truth, and then that fog would be lifted.

The difference between "hate speech" and "offensive speech" is whether or not it fits under the aforementioned factors (race, etc). What determines whether or not something is "hate speech" is the definition.

Nope, close.

Still unclear as to what the point of this is supposed to be or why you think it's relevant.

Yes if you did you would have conceded the truth several post ago.

Yes, they're different. But they're both "hate speech".

I'm not conflating anything. "Hate speech" covers verbal attacks, insults and threats based on race, etc, etc. "Hate speech" is not illegal unless it involves something that's already illegal, like threats.

Maybe I should simplify it for you:

Hate Speech:
- Verbal Attacks
- Insults
- Threats

Illegal Speech:
- Explicit Incitement (I believe it also covers "FIRE!")
- Threats

Two separate and distinct lists. Only one of the former exists in the latter. And that's how it should be.

Nope and you have it right there, and you aren't fucking getting it, you remind me of that news reporter than read off names of a crashed airliner nor realizing they were fake joke names.

Right in front of you unless you are unable to entertain more than one concept correctly and understand them you are going to kill making mistakes, which would be remedied even easier if you read what was written and then stopped trying to apply your definition

Offensive Speech isn't the same thing as Hate Speech, and Hate Speech Covers more than just a along or isolated threat. of violence and death.

[Shadowferal]

Not sure if the term "offensive speech" means anything.
But threats? That's not to be tolerated.

[Mormolyce]

I have never stated they had, what I've always stated is that Hate Speech has been tried before the supreme court multiple times and recently it was unanimously confirmed it is protected under the US constitution. If other countries want to be thought police go right ahead.

But you're not arguing a principle there but rather a legal interpretation that is a question of degree. On the particular matter of hate speech the SC has taken a very liberal interpretation of the First Amendment, while on obscenity they've taken a very narrow interpretation.

Which puts you in the rather absurd situation where the government can't make it illegal to say "whites are the master race and the evil Jews should be exterminated", but they could make it illegal to tell those people to go fuck themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Uh uh uh, no you don't. We're not talking about its production which is illegal. I specifically said its distribution.

- - - Updated - - -

And that shows intellectual cowardice. Being afraid of words is pathetic. Restrictions on speech (other than libel/slander or direct, credible death threats) is dangerous and morally disgusting.

Again, the US specifically exempts obscenity from freedom of speech explicitly because it is offensive for people to hear. Are you on a crusade to remove the obscenity exemption?

[Sharein]

It is actually quite baffling that we think about sacrificing one of our greatest achievements for "muh feels " jurisdiction.

[Mormolyce]

Not absurd at all, i'm not for thought police. Also as I stated earlier it was US Free Speech that has allowed for civil progress in this country in the first place. Seems kinda stupid to restrict the thing that made all that progress possible.

Not for thought police but you're okay with obscenity being exempted from free speech protection? So the government can imprison you for saying things if it deems them too offensive?

[Mistame]

All that it requires to sustain is acceptance of the truth, and then that fog would be lifted.

Mmk

Nope, close.

Yep. Literally.

Right in front of you unless you are unable to entertain more than one concept correctly and understand them you are going to kill making mistakes, which would be remedied even easier if you read what was written and then stopped trying to apply your definition

I don't need to apply anything but the actual definition. "Concepts" are meaningless.

Offensive Speech isn't the same thing as Hate Speech, and Hate Speech Covers more than just a along or isolated threat. of violence and death.

You don't seem to actually be reading my posts, but rather you're taking something from them and arguing a point against that. The problem is, only YOU know what you're taking from them and only YOU know what your point is. I gave you the actual fucking definition; the only relevant definition. So no, "offensive speech" isn't the same as "hate speech", because "offensive speech" is just anything that's "offensive". "Hate speech", as per the actual definition, is verbal attacks, threats or insults based on race, origin, gender, etc. And per US law and the SCOTUS, the only aspect of "hate speech" that's illegal are threats, which are already covered by existing laws. So if you're trying to make some other point, actually express that point rather than throwing your hands over your ears and whining, "That's not what I mean!" Either that, or just shut the fuck up.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Mmk

Yep. Literally.

I don't need to apply anything but the actual definition. "Concepts" are meaningless.

You don't seem to actually be reading my posts, but rather you're taking something from them and arguing a point against that. The problem is, only YOU know what you're taking from them and only YOU know what your point is. I gave you the actual fucking definition; the only relevant definition. So no, "offensive speech" isn't the same as "hate speech", because "offensive speech" is just anything that's "offensive". "Hate speech", as per the actual definition, is verbal attacks, threats or insults based on race, origin, gender, etc. And per US law and the SCOTUS, the only aspect of "hate speech" that's illegal are threats, which are already covered by existing laws. So if you're trying to make some other point, actually express that point rather than throwing your hands over your ears and whining, "That's not what I mean!" Either that, or just shut the fuck up.

No, I have been reading but maybe that was the mistake because not even you have been reading them. Hate Speech and Speeches Threat are not the same one doesn't cover the other and Hate Speech isn't being used to censor unpopular speech. You lost, and you are wrong.

[Mistame]

No, I have been reading but maybe that was the mistake because not even you have been reading them. Hate Speech and Speeches Threat are not the same one doesn't cover the other and Hate Speech isn't being used to censor unpopular speech. You lost, and you are wrong.

Um, I can't "lose" when you didn't even have an argument, let alone when you post nonsense like this. "Hate Speech and Speeches Threat"? What does that even mean? As far as threats, all actual verbal threats are illegal. Hint: Saying, "All <racial slur> should be wiped out" is hate speech. You know what it's not? A threat. It's an opinion, nothing more. Maybe learn to posit an actual argument, form the words coherently and then delivery them in a mature manner and you might actually get better results.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Um, I can't "lose" when you didn't even have an argument, let alone when you post nonsense like this. "Hate Speech and Speeches Threat"? What does that even mean? As far as threats, all actual verbal threats are illegal. Hint: Saying, "All <racial slur> should be wiped out" is hate speech. You know what it's not? A threat. It's an opinion, nothing more. Maybe learn to posit an actual argument, form the words coherently and then delivery them in a mature manner and you might actually get better results.

I didn't need to, but compounded with your own argument you kind of helped me defeat your own argument, thanks for making it easy.

[Mormolyce]

I won't straw man debate you. I'm standing by that people are allowed to hate, and they are allowed to express themselves. You can't stop the first, and I won't take away the second so you feel like the problem went away.

And do you equally stand by people convicted of obscenity?

Are you campaigning to overturn obscenity legislation? Do you want a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that to the legislature, which has decided that obscenity is exempt from free speech protection?

This is no straw man, you are failing to be consistent in your stated principles.