On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[RuleBritannia]

Hitler silenced his critics, that's not too much free speech.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

I agree. If you present the entire context of what I said, it was that too much restriction is just as disastrous as no restrictions at all. Avoid extremes.

I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest that unrestricted freedom of speech is or ever has been "disastrous." Inconvenient for the government, offensive to certain people, etc., sure, but "disastrous?" Never. To much restriction has shown itself to be invariably disastrous.

You missed the Hitler clip? I can find more, if you like.

Hitler was only able to do what he did by virtue of a LACK of free speech, not because there was too much free speech.

[Cunt]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

I agree. If you present the entire context of what I said, it was that too much restriction is just as disastrous as no restrictions at all. Avoid extremes.

Exactly what 'speech' do YOU need protecting from, FBM?

Is anyone here to protect themselves? Or are you all looking out for some (imagined) victim?

[FBM]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech, thereby giving himself unlimited power of speech, which resulted in disaster. An extreme situation, and a very good example of why it is wise to avoid extremes.

[Coito ergo sum]

The freedom that allows them to 'spread such outright lies' is the same freedom that gives you the right to publically demonstrate as such.

If you want to silence someone for holding a view you disagree with, then you have to be prepared to hold your own tongue.

But nothing I say will ever reach 10 million people every night, because (aside from other things) I'm not going to manipulate people into following me. I think all I'm arguing for, is that people with massive influence be required to express truth rather than opinion, or at least, not be allowed to pass their opinion/views as truth, without evidence or reason.

Who decides truth? You? A Ministry of Truth?

Sure there's a lot of choice with things like news but, given that Fox News regularly spreads absolute bullshit,

Says you. So do other news outlets. But, let's take the Fox News - what are your top three statements that you think constitute the abuses of power? And, what would you have done about it? A Federal Bureau of Truthtelling to come swooping in and set broadcasting content?

Say for example when they were caught out, clearly falsifying figures, because their poll added up to 120%



It may be quite funny, but how many things have they fabricated that haven't been caught out?

You think they are the only ones to screw up poll data and statistics? You know for a fact it wasn't a fuck up? It was just an out and out lie?

And, more importantly, what would you do about it? Make Fox News delay their news reports for the time it takes to be verified by the Ministry of Truth?

The same goes for religion, but it's usually a bit more obvious, when people are convinced by the religion that they will go to hell if they don't follow the religion, it seems wrong to me to allow religious leaders to tell their devout followers whatever they want.

You want it to be unlawful for a person to voice their opinion that people are going to hell?

Not "a person" but perhaps "a person with massive power and influence".

LOL - popular people get shut up?

That concept would be used to shut up a lot of stuff. Rock stars who have "massive power and influence" would be silenced when they sing about...crime, violence, drugs, alcohol and sex.

Motley Crue - Girls, Girls, Girls! Using their massive power and influence to teach young fans to view women as sex objects..... ban them! Rap singers singin' about poppin' caps in asses, and women "backin' that thing up..." using their massive power and influence....

I'm not saying I know what should be done about it, but I don't think it's right.

Well, then you should speak out against the things you disagree with. Nobody says that Fox News or anyone else is above criticism. Free speech encourages vigorous debate, and encourages people to rise up and oppose the evil doers. Having the government protect us is lazy and self-defeating, and breeds authoritarianism.

[RuleBritannia]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech, thereby giving himself unlimited power of speech, which resulted in disaster. An extreme situation, and a very good example of why it is wise to avoid extremes.

Who decideds what the extremes are? And once decided are those who argue against the rules imprisoned? How do you prevent from becoming the very thing you are trying to avoid?

[Coito ergo sum]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech,

No. He silenced others with guns, and the power of the State.

[FBM]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech, thereby giving himself unlimited power of speech, which resulted in disaster. An extreme situation, and a very good example of why it is wise to avoid extremes.

Who decideds what the extremes are? And once decided are those who argue against the rules imprisoned? How do you prevent from becoming the very thing you are trying to avoid?

Extremes are from unlimited to zero. It's not a decision. Yes, if the potential despot hones his behavior and speaking skills sufficiently, he can have his opponents imprisoned. Both Hitler and those he oppressed are the extremes to be avoided.

[FBM]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech,

No. He silenced others with guns, and the power of the State.

As far as I know, Hitler never squeezed the trigger on anyone himself. He used his power of speech to persuade others to do it for him and to become THE power of the State.

[RuleBritannia]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech, thereby giving himself unlimited power of speech, which resulted in disaster. An extreme situation, and a very good example of why it is wise to avoid extremes.

Who decideds what the extremes are? And once decided are those who argue against the rules imprisoned? How do you prevent from becoming the very thing you are trying to avoid?

Extremes are from unlimited to zero. It's not a decision. Yes, if the potential despot hones his behavior and speaking skills sufficiently, he can have his opponents imprisoned. Both Hitler and those he oppressed are the extremes to be avoided.

What are the "extremes" to be avoided? Who decides that?

[Pappa]

Speech is not behavior.

[Trolldor]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech, thereby giving himself unlimited power of speech, which resulted in disaster. An extreme situation, and a very good example of why it is wise to avoid extremes.

Go and silence all my critics FBM.

[Trolldor]

Also, Nelson Mandella.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech,

No. He silenced others with guns, and the power of the State.

As far as I know, Hitler never squeezed the trigger on anyone himself. He used his power of speech to persuade others to do it for him and to become THE power of the State.

In any republic, a wacko can be elected. The key is that the system must maintain individual liberty, including the freedom of speech, inviolate. When it betrays that, then the people lose the ability to be a check against the government.

[Coito ergo sum]

Speech is not behavior.

Um....yeah... behavior is "action." Speech involves words.

Definitions:

Behave: to act in a particular way; conduct or comport oneself or itself.
Behavior: particular actions or conduct.
Act: anything done, being done, or to be done; deed;
Conduct: Manner of acting; personal behavior.
Speech/Expression: oral or written communication.

Speech is not "conduct" or "a manner of acting" or "personal behavior." It is oral or written communication. One may engage in conduct while speaking, but speaking is not engaging in conduct.