Social Justice Warriors LOL

[piscator]

J/K, heh


Cheese?

[pErvinalia]

No "Seth" option?

[Forty Two]

Freedom of expression must include the implicit licence to offend. However, there must be limits to how far that licence extended - there's no ready formula here.

There is, actually. It's over the line if it incites an immediate breach of the peace by provoking a fight, so long as it is a personally abusive word(s) which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction. Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult." and not merely offensive in general. Defamatory speech, or speech which qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress. That kind of thing.

Do you not think this runs the risk of enabling the offended to define the bounds of everybody else's freedom of expression?

In the US, generally no. The traditional notion of free speech had as a principle aspect the notion that the heckler does not get a veto, and free speech does not depend on the reaction of the listeners. I.e., just because speech enrages people doesn't mean it's not free speech. The kind of speech that is prohibited is speech which is an immediate call for specific violence. I.e. fighting words -- words which are, like, I'm going to kick your ass! And its uttered at a time when ass kicking can be accomplished and is likely to occur. The US rule has always been protective of the offensive person -- like, communists and fascist groups -- they may piss people off, offend people, and enrage people -- but, the law is to protect the speaker from the violence of a crowd, not a violent crowd from the speech of an offensive speaker.

[Forty Two]

The problem I see is "ordinary citizen". This is potentially why "hate speech" laws against minorities have been so hard to get enshrined.

Well, right, because "hate speech" laws tend to be very vague, overly broad, and stifling of unpopular speech, and not merely speech that is directed toward inciting immediate violence.

Saying "I hate black people" or "I hate white people" or "whites/blacks should be deported from the country" may well be hate speech - but, it is -- and in my view absolutely should be -- free speech. When Louis Farrakhan says that the Jews should be eliminated and Hitler was on the right track, he is and should be within his liberty to say so. The response to that unpopular and offensive speech is to shine the light of truth on it. Debunk it.

And, hate speech laws cannot, at least in the US, be worded to just protect "minorities." That would violate the equal protection clause, which is the common sense guarantee that each INDIVIDUAL has the right to be treated equally under the law. So, you can't say "black people suck" is illegal hate speech, but allow "white people suck" to be uttered freely. That would be a violation of equal protection of the law, and there is hardly a court in the country that would not strike down a law that said that. Some progressive judges might try to come up with some typical regressive leftist logic as to why the law can give different treatment to marginalized groups or some such nonsense, but every, single court of appeals and the Supreme Court would most certainly hold that equal protection does not allow content based distinctions to be made on speech in a discriminatory or non-neutral fashion.

One key concept in US free speech law is content neutrality -- the government is not permitted to say what is truth and what isn't, and what is good speech and what is not. The government is not the arbiter of political propriety.

And, if you're going to have freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of speech, then you have to have freedom to hate. Controlling hate is an attempt to control thought crime. People are free to hate. And, as a corrollary, if they hate, they are allowed to say that they hate. If you eliminate that, you effectively eliminate the freedom of belief and the freedom of speech. As the regressive left has ably shown of late, they are more than willing to call mere disagreement "hate speech."

[pErvinalia]

When Louis Farrakhan says that the Jews should be eliminated and Hitler was on the right track, he is and should be within his liberty to say so. The response to that unpopular and offensive speech is to shine the light of truth on it. Debunk it.

Yeah, we've been through this all before. That's just an utterly naive way to approach the world. I'm not having this debate for the fourth time.

[Svartalf]

Free speech is about, duh, free speech, that's applying even to fals, unpopular or hateful views.

Any censure is abridgement of free speech and wrong.

[pErvinalia]

No country outside of Somalia has free speech. We all have varying degrees of freedom of speech.

[Forty Two]

What happened at Milo's speech at DePaul University is a real wake-up call, and should be a signal that it's time not to take this shit from the regressive left any longer. Stop laying down to these dipshits.

They stormed the stage. One of them assaulted the moderator and grabbed his microphone away from him. She then aggressively approached Milo, and swung at him, nearly hitting his face (you see Milo simply turn his cheek and wince a bit, but he held back reacting). Another one paced up and down the stage, and threatened immediate violence against Milo -- threatened to hit him and knock him to the floor.

The school had required Milo to pay $2,000 or $3,000 extra to pay for additional security the school thought was necessary to keep the peace, because "protests" were expected. When the disruption and assaults, and commandeering of the stage, took place, however, the security and campus police were, Milo said, told by the university to stand down and not take any action against the "protesters." The security Milo paid for at an event organized and paid for by a student group was allowed to be disrupted by a violent creeps and the security guards and campus police stood by and let it happen.

Milo then walked with some of the audience members - some of whom had driven for hours to get to the event -- to the administration offices to seek help. Along the way, they were spat at by leftist creeps. They were yelled at and berated the whole way. The administration did absolutely nothing.

This is where things are in the US now.

Frankly, Milo had quite a lot of patience. He should have been able to deck the douche who got in his face, and if security did not remove these criminals, then the audience should have been able to use self-help to throw them out the door. However, Milo and everyone else there knew that they have no such right anymore. Had they done that, security would have stepped in and arrested people trying to clear the disruptive creeps out of the room. They had to sit there and take it.

But, the voices of reason need to speak up more now. We need to oppose the regressive left's tactics, their violence, and make sure that they lose this "debate." They throw soda and even urine on Lauren Southern. They throw punches at Trump rallies and then try to claim that they are oppressed for being pepper sprayed. They throw rocks at cops and police horses. They turn over cop cars and set fires. The left is extremely violent, and it's time to stop taking it.

[Forty Two]

No country outside of Somalia has free speech. We all have varying degrees of freedom of speech.

Red herring.

Only people who have no idea what they're talking about say that.

[Forty Two]

Free speech is about, duh, free speech, that's applying even to fals, unpopular or hateful views.

Any censure is abridgement of free speech and wrong.

Indeed.

[pErvinalia]

What happened at Milo's speech at DePaul University is a real wake-up call, and should be a signal that it's time not to take this shit from the regressive left any longer. Stop laying down to these dipshits.

They stormed the stage. One of them assaulted the moderator and grabbed his microphone away from him. She then aggressively approached Milo, and swung at him, nearly hitting his face (you see Milo simply turn his cheek and wince a bit, but he held back reacting). Another one paced up and down the stage, and threatened immediate violence against Milo -- threatened to hit him and knock him to the floor.

He should have them charged with attempted assault. No need to get your panties in a twist about the regressive left taking over the world. You still have laws against this sort of behaviour.

[pErvinalia]

No country outside of Somalia has free speech. We all have varying degrees of freedom of speech.

Red herring.

Only people who have no idea what they're talking about say that.

Well it's true. If you think it's not, explain yourself. Cocksucking liberals don't explain themselves.

[Forty Two]

When Louis Farrakhan says that the Jews should be eliminated and Hitler was on the right track, he is and should be within his liberty to say so. The response to that unpopular and offensive speech is to shine the light of truth on it. Debunk it.

Yeah, we've been through this all before. That's just an utterly naive way to approach the world. I'm not having this debate for the fourth time.

You're wrong. And, you've never actually "debated" the issue, because you've never actually articulated an argument.

It's not naivete. What's naive is the thinking that a government can write laws to define what hate speech is allowable and what isn't, and not also be controlling political thought or otherwise imposing an orthodoxy. It's naive to think that the government can effectively thought police this issue, and know what is and is not permissible hate in anything other than an arbitrary way, and it is particularly naive to think that the government can make laws protecting minorities from the same kind and character of speech that is allowed if directed at majorities. That's naivete.

No matter how many times you try to sell your nonsense, rEv, it doesn't get any more persuasive. You just sound like a virtue signalling white knighting leftist dingbat.

[pErvinalia]

When Louis Farrakhan says that the Jews should be eliminated and Hitler was on the right track, he is and should be within his liberty to say so. The response to that unpopular and offensive speech is to shine the light of truth on it. Debunk it.

Yeah, we've been through this all before. That's just an utterly naive way to approach the world. I'm not having this debate for the fourth time.

You're wrong. And, you've never actually "debated" the issue, because you've never actually articulated an argument.

It's not naivete. What's naive is the thinking that a government can write laws to define what hate speech is allowable and what isn't, and not also be controlling political thought or otherwise imposing an orthodoxy. It's naive to think that the government can effectively thought police this issue, and know what is and is not permissible hate in anything other than an arbitrary way, and it is particularly naive to think that the government can make laws protecting minorities from the same kind and character of speech that is allowed if directed at majorities. That's naivete.

No matter how many times you try to sell your nonsense, rEv, it doesn't get any more persuasive. You just sound like a virtue signalling white knighting leftist dingbat.

And you are basically Seth, just replace "Marxists" for "Feminists/regressive-leftists". How does it feel to be at that level of critical thought?

[Svartalf]

No country outside of Somalia has free speech. We all have varying degrees of freedom of speech.

a country where your free speech can be abridged by violent parties and you have no legal recourse does not have free speech.