On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Coito ergo sum]

I can only applaud this gentleman:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... peech_laws

He explains quite succinctly why the nonsense about insulting people for genetic characteristics or "inciting hatred" or whatever nonsense these bullshit hate speech laws claim to be based on is just that - nonsense. Inciting hatred is a fundamental right, and must remain a fundamental right, and we should all be very much opposed to State power being used against the free expression of ideas.

This is part of a "hate speech" investigation:



I applaud this man's big "fuck you!" to this bureaucrat pig. Fuck her and fucking agency.

EDIT: scary shit, this. The above is how the State shuts the people up. It is too much for most individuals to bear to be hauled in before a bitch like this - the stress, the fear, the cost, etc. - so they guard and measure what they say to make sure they can't even be accused of insulting anyone. And, it allows the squeaking wheels, like the piece of shit Muslims who filed the complaint the above case, to control public discourse.

"What's my "intent" in saying or publishing? I'll give you my intent RIGHT HERE! My intent is to insult your fucking delicate sensibilities! Fuck off!"

[amused]

Here's that video of Hitchens arguing in favor of rescinding Canadian hate speech laws, in case anyone missed it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9058958603#

[charlou]

I can only applaud this gentleman:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... peech_laws

He explains quite succinctly why the nonsense about insulting people for genetic characteristics or "inciting hatred" or whatever nonsense these bullshit hate speech laws claim to be based on is just that - nonsense. Inciting hatred is a fundamental right, and must remain a fundamental right, and we should all be very much opposed to State power being used against the free expression of ideas.

This is part of a "hate speech" investigation:



I applaud this man's big "fuck you!" to this bureaucrat pig. Fuck her and fucking agency.

EDIT: scary shit, this. The above is how the State shuts the people up. It is too much for most individuals to bear to be hauled in before a bitch like this - the stress, the fear, the cost, etc. - so they guard and measure what they say to make sure they can't even be accused of insulting anyone. And, it allows the squeaking wheels, like the piece of shit Muslims who filed the complaint the above case, to control public discourse.

"What's my "intent" in saying or publishing? I'll give you my intent RIGHT HERE! My intent is to insult your fucking delicate sensibilities! Fuck off!"

Can't fault the guy's response to her questions .. very well said.

Coito, I wouldn't be so harsh on the interviewer, who was just doing her job. I wonder if his response was an eye-opener for her ...

What was the outcome for Levant?

[charlou]

Here's that video of Hitchens arguing in favor of rescinding Canadian hate speech laws, in case anyone missed it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9058958603#

Yes. A very good one.

Always good to watch and hear Hitchens' thoughts again.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Coito, I wouldn't be so harsh on the interviewer, who was just doing her job...

Doing evil because it is your job, does not stop it being evil.

We should be just as harsh on those that implement censorship laws, as on those that pass them.

[Trolldor]

Not really.

If there's a job, somebody has to fill the position.
Some people need a position to fill.

[charlou]

...Coito, I wouldn't be so harsh on the interviewer, who was just doing her job...

Doing evil because it is your job, does not stop it being evil.

We should be just as harsh on those that implement censorship laws, as on those that pass them.

In a democracy, the electorate are the ones responsible for the introduction and implementation of such laws.

She's doing a job I would not do, but I don't think she's evil, a bitch, or any other characterisation people want to attribute for doing it. She was out of her depth and he rightly had her on the back foot during that interview ... How she assesses his comments may be coloured by how she feels about that, which would be a travesty because he clearly made a valid point and made it well.

[Cunt]

Fuck ya Levant!

[Hermit]

A few months ago I was defending hate-crime legislation on the grounds of, well, basically Hitler's propaganda machine during the Weimar republic. Nowadays my view is pretty much encapsulated by what Christopher Hitchens had to say on the matter. Amused already provided a link to it above, but I think it's worth drawing attention to it again.

[mistermack]

I'm not sure about this. Hitchens is so persuasive, it's easy to go along with him.
But look what he skips around. He defends the right to insult religions, agreed. He defends the right to push highly controversial views like holocaust denial. Again agreed.
But what he DOESN'T do, is face up squarely to INCITEMENT TO RACE HATRED.
You can't claim to be fully honest, unless you tackle the hard bits. He concentrates on the easier stuff.
It is surely not beyond the wit of man to frame a law, so that a wise judge can say : There is the line, and you crossed it. Or : There is the line, and you kept just inside it. Or even : I think you ever so slightly went over the line, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I can't embrace a world where PUBLIC incitement to race hatred is considered a right.
Lots of rights impinge on other rights, you can't have it all ways.
I think this is one right that could kill, and in any case impinges on people's rights to live without threat or fear.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can't fault the guy's response to her questions .. very well said.

Coito, I wouldn't be so harsh on the interviewer, who was just doing her job. I wonder if his response was an eye-opener for her ...

What was the outcome for Levant?

Boss: Sorry, Luke. I'm just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that.
Luke: Nah - calling it your job don't make it right, Boss.

[Trolldor]

Once again, Coito, there a jobs that need filling, and people who need to fill jobs.

Don't pass judgement on someone until you know their personal convictions.

[Trolldor]

I'm not sure about this. Hitchens is so persuasive, it's easy to go along with him.
But look what he skips around. He defends the right to insult religions, agreed. He defends the right to push highly controversial views like holocaust denial. Again agreed.
But what he DOESN'T do, is face up squarely to INCITEMENT TO RACE HATRED.
You can't claim to be fully honest, unless you tackle the hard bits. He concentrates on the easier stuff.
It is surely not beyond the wit of man to frame a law, so that a wise judge can say : There is the line, and you crossed it. Or : There is the line, and you kept just inside it. Or even : I think you ever so slightly went over the line, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I can't embrace a world where PUBLIC incitement to race hatred is considered a right.
Lots of rights impinge on other rights, you can't have it all ways.
I think this is one right that could kill, and in any case impinges on people's rights to live without threat or fear.
.

Accept the good with the bad.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not sure about this. Hitchens is so persuasive, it's easy to go along with him.
But look what he skips around. He defends the right to insult religions, agreed. He defends the right to push highly controversial views like holocaust denial. Again agreed.
But what he DOESN'T do, is face up squarely to INCITEMENT TO RACE HATRED.

I think he does. It's been a while since I heard his argument on that, but I recall him mentioning in one of his free speech arguments the ACLU v Skokie, Illinois case wherein the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party's right to incite race hatred and public demonstrate in favor of racial hatred.

Freedom of belief and freedom of speech includes the freedom to believe in racism, and to say what one believes.

You can't claim to be fully honest, unless you tackle the hard bits. He concentrates on the easier stuff.

It's only "easier" for you because you arbitrarily choose race as a sacred cow. To many people, religion is far more sacrosanct than race.

It is surely not beyond the wit of man to frame a law, so that a wise judge can say : There is the line, and you crossed it. Or : There is the line, and you kept just inside it.

In the case of freedom of belief and freedom of speech, I haven't seen it. The law invariably is overly broad and vague.

Or even : I think you ever so slightly went over the line, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I can't embrace a world where PUBLIC incitement to race hatred is considered a right.

Why not?

Many people - perhaps even most people in the world, can't embrace a world where PUBLIC incitement to religious hatred is considered a right.

Lots of rights impinge on other rights, you can't have it all ways.

Holding the belief in racism and espousing it publicly does not infringe on other rights.

I think this is one right that could kill,

How?

If you mean - that people might act on that belief, and kill, then the same analysis applies to political beliefs, philosophies, and religious beliefs. People have always killed for what they believe in. Rarely, if ever, do people kill for reasons that they don't feel are important.

and in any case impinges on people's rights to live without threat or fear.
.

Once again, if beliefs causing people to feel threatened and fearful are not fair game for expression, then goodbye to blasphemy - goodbye to insulting and disrespecting religion - billions of people on the planet are rendered fearful and threatened by assaults on their bullshit religions.

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, Coito, there a jobs that need filling, and people who need to fill jobs.

Don't pass judgement on someone until you know their personal convictions.

LOL - I'll expect you never to pass judgment on anyone until you know their personal convictions then, including politicians, religious leaders, and such.

This woman has a job where she is enforcing laws against people peacefully speaking their minds, and publishing what they want. She is the equivalent of a book burner. Is what this fella said "heresy?" That's what she is investigating and deciding. If it's heresy, she'll criminally punish him - fines - maybe imprisonment, and his writings will be destroyed or at least removed from publication.

I know that she is willing to take that job. And, in that respect she is no different than a person who would remove Tom Sawyer or Lady Chatterly's Lover from a public library.