Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
LastLast
  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And yet, hate speech is banned for nearly identical reasons in those nations with laws against it, yet you for some reason believe there is a categorical difference between that and these "correct" limitations on speech.
    Hate speech is just a type of insult. It doesn't hurt anything more than feelings. That's why it should not be limited.

  2. #282
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,275
    Quote Originally Posted by gryme View Post
    Said it earlier and I'll say it again... you DON'T and SHOULDN'T have the right to not be offended. It is a simple as that.=
    And again; hate speech and harassment laws have nothing to do with someone feeling "offended". Nada. Zip. They're based on the same principle that slander and libel are, or incitement to violence.

  3. #283
    Epic! Lora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Some random weird place
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And yet, hate speech is banned for nearly identical reasons in those nations with laws against it, yet you for some reason believe there is a categorical difference between that and these "correct" limitations on speech.
    Majority/consensus =/= right thing. Course, morals are completely subjective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thedead241 View Post
    I'm a prostitute. Men like to tell me secrets. And women.

  4. #284
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorensen View Post
    Hate speech is just a type of insult. It doesn't hurt anything more than feelings. That's why it should not be limited.
    No, this is just categorically false. This is the "evolution is just a theory, man" of arguments against hate speech. You not understanding the terminology is not an argument against it.

    Edit: Specifically, for something to qualify as "hate speech", it typically needs to involve an incitement to violence against an identifiable group, or to threaten/harass/intimidate said group.

    So, if we're going to talk about speech regarding a group of blue-skinned people, to make up an ethnicity that doesn't exist so nobody can get offended;

    "I hate all those fucking blue people" isn't hate speech.
    "You smurfs are ruining everything" isn't hate speech, even if "smurf" is a racial epithet in this case.
    "We need to kill all those goddamned smurfs" is hate speech, due to incitement to violence/genocide.
    "Smurfing smurfs smurfing the smurf out of all the smurfing smurf" isn't hate speech, despite the heavy use of "smurf".
    "If I see any fucking bluefaces, I'm beating the shit out of them" is hate speech, speech meant to intimidate/harass.

    And so on.

    It isn't "insults". It isn't stuff that offends people. If that's what you think "hate speech" is, then you aren't paying attention to the actual laws and you're just reacting off either a complete willful ignorance of the legislation in question, where you refuse to actually look up those laws to inform yourself before spouting off, or you're listening to some propaganda mouthpiece that is outright lying to you.
    Last edited by Endus; 2013-02-01 at 08:27 PM.

  5. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by Lora View Post
    Majority/consensus =/= right thing. Course, morals are completely subjective.
    Exactly. I love these people who claim that because its "law" that makes it right. No... law has nothing to do with whats right or wrong in MANY cases.. just with whats popular. Gay marriage in America, anybody?

    And how exactly does hate "SPEECH" have NOTHING to do with someone being offended? It has everything to do with people being offended. I agree on anything that doesn't incite violence towards a person or a group of people, but if someone doesn't like, say black people for example, they should have EVERY right to express that, in any way they like, so long as it doesn't incite violence or ruin their "image" so to speak.. ie slander etc.

  6. #286
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,275
    Quote Originally Posted by gryme View Post
    And how exactly does hate "SPEECH" have NOTHING to do with someone being offended? It has everything to do with people being offended. I agree on anything that doesn't incite violence towards a person or a group of people, but if someone doesn't like, say black people for example, they should have EVERY right to express that, in any way they like, so long as it doesn't incite violence or ruin their "image" so to speak.. ie slander etc.
    Again, see above. Nowhere that bans hate speech will charge someone because they say "I don't like black people". That's not hate speech.

    Seriously, if you haven't even read up on what hate speech is, why are you commenting and arguing that it's "bad" to ban it?

  7. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by gryme View Post
    Exactly. I love these people who claim that because its "law" that makes it right. No... law has nothing to do with whats right or wrong in MANY cases.. just with whats popular. Gay marriage in America, anybody?
    No it doesn't necessarily make it right but criticising the police for enforcing the law, as evident from the "have the police not got better things to do" replies, is ridiculous. If you want to attempt to change the law, good luck to you, honestly some laws do need changing but to vilify the police for carrying out proper procedure in regards to following up complaints made by the public is absurd.

  8. #288
    Epic! Lora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Some random weird place
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Activi-T View Post
    No it doesn't necessarily make it right but criticising the police for enforcing the law, as evident from the "have the police not got better things to do" replies, is ridiculous. If you want to attempt to change the law, good luck to you, honestly some laws do need changing but to vilify the police for carrying out proper procedure in regards to following up complaints made by the public is absurd.
    Because all police are noble and sincere and dont have napoleon complexes. That is a nice tinfoil hat and some tinted goggles you got there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thedead241 View Post
    I'm a prostitute. Men like to tell me secrets. And women.

  9. #289
    Why don't you define hate speech for us then Endus because literally I think hate speech could be saying you hate pineapple on pizza. Speech expressing hate... hate speech.

  10. #290
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorensen View Post
    Why don't you define hate speech for us then Endus because literally I think hate speech could be saying you hate pineapple on pizza. Speech expressing hate... hate speech.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    Take particular note of the specific implementations by nation lower down, since we're talking about hate speech laws. It's not like I'm making something up, I'm citing stuff from the UK and Canadian law books; the Canadian because I'm Canadian and that's the system I'm most familiar with, and the UK laws because those are the ones actually in play in this case. The better question is, why am I linking wikipedia and such, rather than you seeking them out to get a basic understanding of the subject before commenting?

  11. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Lora View Post
    Because all police are noble and sincere and dont have napoleon complexes. That is a nice tinfoil hat and some tinted goggles you got there.
    Because all police officers aren't accountable to the IPCC or anything. The fact you argued the poster and not the content shows who is wrapped in the shiny stuff.

  12. #292
    Right, as absurd as arresting someone for "online harassment" of some sort? You know what I do when someone says something that offends me online? I skip past it... or ignore it... or ignore everything from that person... or block that person... if that person chooses to make another "account" or whatever it may be... oh look, there's more options to CHOOSE not to read whats being said, or look, omg I can block that person again. You know, its almost as if they never existed, because I'm not giving them that ability. Typing shit is just TYPING SHIT.. its WORDS, and when its online, ESPECIALLY when its online, you are COMPLETELY responsible for what you CHOOSE to read, or pay attention to, or to ignore, or block, or skip past. Why the fuck is this so difficult?

    Fuck! that person says they don't like me... ignore... they say they think I'm a redneck cracker white trash etc etc... meh, ignore... they keep leaving me messages.. oh whatever will i do... oh yeah, block... oh they made a new account to bug me more... oh look, that block button is still there... oh look, ANOTHER new account to "harass" me with.. cool, I JUST WON'T READ IT... they can have an insulting conversation about me with themselves. Oh, they are talking about me to other people? Well shit, if people believe the nonsense this hypothetical harasser is saying, then what the fuck do I care about those people, if they don't know me well enough, why should I concern myself? It really is the simplest shit. Yes, there absolutely are limits, which I've already said, but when it comes to online, where EVERYTHING you read or do is YOUR CHOICE, with EVERY ability to, once again, ignore/block/etc, people should ALMOST be allowed to say WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY LIKE. If it offends you.. you have THOSE CHOICES to react in the same way to me.
    Last edited by gryme; 2013-02-01 at 08:52 PM.

  13. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    Take particular note of the specific implementations by nation lower down, since we're talking about hate speech laws. It's not like I'm making something up, I'm citing stuff from the UK and Canadian law books; the Canadian because I'm Canadian and that's the system I'm most familiar with, and the UK laws because those are the ones actually in play in this case. The better question is, why am I linking wikipedia and such, rather than you seeking them out to get a basic understanding of the subject before commenting?
    Because I already defined what I feel is hate speech. Speech hating something. I hate avacados. I hate excessive amounts of snow, etc.

  14. #294
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorensen View Post
    Because I already defined what I feel is hate speech. Speech hating something. I hate avacados. I hate excessive amounts of snow, etc.
    I just defined "hate speech" to mean "potatoes". I'm going to have some boiled hate speech with dinner tonight, I think. Or maybe french fried hate speech with ketchup.

    Why is anyone banning potatoes? That seems silly.

    Almost as silly as trying to redefine terms like "hate speech" to avoid discussing the actual issue, because you'd rather attack a totally different straw man instead.

  15. #295
    Epic! Lora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Some random weird place
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorensen View Post
    Because I already defined what I feel is hate speech. Speech hating something. I hate avacados. I hate excessive amounts of snow, etc.
    Do you truly hate it or do you just dislike it? How do you really feel?
    Quote Originally Posted by Thedead241 View Post
    I'm a prostitute. Men like to tell me secrets. And women.

  16. #296
    Bloodsail Admiral Chrispotter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,188
    Racism is wrong. Sure fine the guy and IDK ban him from internet access for a month or something, but people's lives being completely destroyed because of a facebook post is a joke. Celebritys and footballers definently get better attention when it comes to this. People get insulted , Racially or otherwise, on the internet like 1000 times a second, only when it happens to someone famous does it become a law to be enforced. Sorry for bad spelling, hand is fkd up today.

  17. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I just defined "hate speech" to mean "potatoes". I'm going to have some boiled hate speech with dinner tonight, I think. Or maybe french fried hate speech with ketchup.

    Why is anyone banning potatoes? That seems silly.

    Almost as silly as trying to redefine terms like "hate speech" to avoid discussing the actual issue, because you'd rather attack a totally different straw man instead.
    But the term literally is saying that hate can only apply to specific groups. Even when that is not the meaning of the word.

    Also I seem to be in agreement with my country's laws on the subject in that it should not be restricted.

  18. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by KunkkaTheAdmiral View Post
    It's racism in the end, even if it happened through the media called facebook.

    If its up to me racists should be punished as hard as possible, there is no excuse for being a racist of any sort.
    Your intolerance to people who have different opinion making you no better than them, and probably worse, because you're sure that you have all rights to punish them.

  19. #299
    Basically calling for racists to be vilified is hate speech because you are attacking a specific group of people based on their system of beliefs.

  20. #300
    Titan Wildtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iowa - Franconia
    Posts
    12,568
    Quote Originally Posted by vsb View Post
    Your intolerance to people who have different opinion making you no better than them, and probably worse, because you're sure that you have all rights to punish them.
    How much sense does that make now? Shall we - by your definition - just abandon all law, all regulation? Even discard murder?
    Because sure as hell, every murderer did have a personal reason to kill. They had their own opinion that made em murder someone.
    So, now we discard it, because it makes us no better people, or even worse for punishing them?
    I'm sorry, but I am very intolerant towards such crimes. And many other crimes too.

    I know my example exaggerated, but it's just a conclusion drawn into the extreme, to showcase that anything disregarding the law makes pretty much no sense.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 03:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lora View Post
    Majority/consensus =/= right thing. Course, morals are completely subjective.
    Morals are based on what society as a whole agrees on. Laws reflect just that. Are they completely subjective? Highly questionable, unless you see the entire society of a country as one single body.
    It is however possible that over time the views and morals of a society change, which is called evolving, usually...
    Some evolve faster, others evolves slower. Whose to say what side evolved in this case?
    Let's look at freedom of speech...
    We have one side, which claims to be the ultimate and correct source for freedom of speech, because only without any limitation at all it's free speech.
    That is pretty much found only in one country on Earth, the USA. So, that side claims to be more evolved (let's assume that).
    Well, fact of the matter is, even in the USA Freedom of Speech has it's limitations. Often enough even more limited to what the other side experiences.
    Because, asides from many things that are against US law, there's also the the problem with censorship on US Media. No cuss words on TV or Radio.
    Dress code, is also an issue.. If a boob pops out somewhere, it's a national catastrophe, treated almost like a terrorist attack against morals..
    Most live shows on TV are aired with several minutes or more delay, to be able to cut out inappropriate content..
    So much to freedom of speech in the USA.

    Now on the other hand, we have other countries, who are limiting freedom of speech in a more rational way (so they believe). Things that purposely harm someone in any shape or form are excluded. Hate speech, and in some cases are even up to propaganda of radical doctrines are against the laws of free speech.
    So, that side also claims to be further evolved. Through that, these societies decided to create laws, to protect these ideologies, to reflect their societies new morals... And yet, most of those countries do not have censored TV or Radio.
    Here's an example that shows a difference The first 20 seconds....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUVoot21TBk

    So it's apparently not about the words.. it's all about the context as to how free speech is used. And to regulate that through laws is good

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •