On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post Reply
User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by FBM » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:11 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.
You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.
lolwut?
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Trolldor » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:12 pm

FBM wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.
You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.
lolwut?
If words were actions everybody would be dead by now.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by FBM » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:16 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:
FBM wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.
You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.
lolwut?
If words were actions everybody would be dead by now.
Speaking (and typing) are actions. Words spoken by certain people at certain times send millions into war or to WalMart. Everything a person does is behavior. Even thinking.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

FBM wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.
You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.
lolwut?
You said "every society has restrictions on behavior" and then you said that the "only question is about whether restriction of a certain type of "speech" is advisable.

To "behave" is "to act in a particular way." Act.

Speech and actions are different things entirely. It's the difference between saying I want to do something and doing it. It's the difference between openly extolling the benefits of marijuana use, and actually using it. Even though using marijuana is illegal, wearing a shirt suggesting that pot is great is not.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by mistermack » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:25 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:Utter tosh. You're assuming that your silencing of someone else's speech is valid and their silencing of yours is not.
Nope, I'm drawing the line at PUBLIC incitement to hate another person or persons. Past that would be illegal for me and everyone else. Up to that line would be legal for all.
Who would decide would be a judge with years of experience.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Trolldor » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:27 pm

FBM wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:
FBM wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.
You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.
lolwut?
If words were actions everybody would be dead by now.
Speaking (and typing) are actions. Words spoken by certain people at certain times send millions into war or to WalMart. Everything a person does is behavior. Even thinking.
Words don't send millions to war at all. It takes the whole construction of subservient culture and training for words to have any effect - and even then it's simply a matter of refusing. Look at Draft dodgers.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by FBM » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:27 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.
You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.
lolwut?
You said "every society has restrictions on behavior" and then you said that the "only question is about whether restriction of a certain type of "speech" is advisable.

To "behave" is "to act in a particular way." Act.

Speech and actions are different things entirely. It's the difference between saying I want to do something and doing it. It's the difference between openly extolling the benefits of marijuana use, and actually using it. Even though using marijuana is illegal, wearing a shirt suggesting that pot is great is not.
Speaking isn't an action? Putting on and wearing a shirt aren't actions? Am I not acting when I type this? Are not my muscles contracting when I speak? Are not my neurons firing when I think about what I want to say? Speaking is action, it is behavior. I teach English; I'm teaching behavior.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Trolldor » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:29 pm

Language isn't behaviour.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by FBM » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:31 pm

Words and speech sends millions to war.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw837zt8 ... re=related[/youtube]
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Trolldor » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:40 pm

And I suppose the fact that Hitler brought Germany back from the third world contributed nothing.
I suppose his skill as an orator meant nothing. I suppose the German populace's desperation meant nothing.

It was all the words.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

PsychoSerenity
"I" Self-Perceive Recursively
Posts: 7824
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by PsychoSerenity » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:42 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Psychoserenity wrote: But when an individual has great influence over a significant portion of the community, I'm not sure. - whether it's a politician, a media mogul, or a religious leader - I think it gets dangerous when too much power is in the hands of too few people.
In the case of the media, it's the wild west. A lot of people watch Fox News, but they do so by choice. There are 200 other channels on my cable television, and the news sources I have at my fingertips at any moment are legion. Newspapers, websites, radio, television, magazines, you name it. There are so many choices in so many differing views, that the only way one media mogul is getting power is by producing programming people like to watch.
When somebody has so much influence, is it acceptable for them to be spreading outright lies? Perhaps what I'm getting at isn't so much a free speech issue, as an abuse of power issue.

Sure there's a lot of choice with things like news but, given that Fox News regularly spreads absolute bullshit, the reason so many people watch it must be beacuse Fox are very good at manipulating people, one way or another, into following what they say. 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.

But like I said, I can't see any easy way around it without harming free speech for others.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Trolldor » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:44 pm

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.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:45 pm

FBM wrote:Words and speech sends millions to war.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw837zt8 ... re=related[/youtube]

The words are not actions, though.

It is not now, nor should it be, illegal to say, "let's go to war against country X, Y or Z." It should be illegal for private individuals to pick up arms and fire them at other people.

And, the government doesn't have freedom of speech. Individuals do. So, when the Third Reich went to war against Poland, it wasn't too much free speech that caused it, it was TOO LITTLE free speech that did it.

I find it curious that you introduce the Nazi instigation of WW2 as a reason to OPPOSE free speech. Had the people vigorously defended their individual rights to free expression in 1930-36, Hitler would never have been able to do what he did. First, the Reich killed the right to freely speak one's mind. Then the government did as it pleased, and all dissent was illegal. Incitement to hatred was illegal too....unless directed at the proper target. Hatred of Jews - legal. Hatred of Germans Protestants - illegal/treason.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by FBM » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:50 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:...I suppose his skill as an orator meant nothing...
*cough*
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

Post by Trolldor » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:51 pm

*sigh*

You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests