Rolling my eyes is an action. Thinking is an action. I'm asking you to elevate your level of discourse to reflect exactly what you mean. So far, you haven't matched your intended message with your typed message. (I mean 'you' collectively to include the others who are arguing in the same vein.)Coito ergo sum wrote:The words are not actions, though...
On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
- 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
"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."
"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."
- 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
"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."
"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."
- 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
I'm imagining Hitler pounding the podium and screeching, "The German people are the best jelly donuts the world has ever seen! We will achieve the purity of our race by changing the oil in our cars every 50,000 miles! The llama is a quadruped!"The Mad Hatter wrote:*sigh*
You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?
"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."
"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."
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
would a good Muslim refer to Mr. Hitchens' work as 'hate crimes'?
Should his hatred be removed from civilized discourse?
Free speech isn't the problem - it's the solution.
Should his hatred be removed from civilized discourse?
Free speech isn't the problem - it's the solution.
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
And he damn well could have.FBM wrote:I'm imagining Hitler pounding the podium and screeching, "The German people are the best jelly donuts the world has ever seen! We will achieve the purity of our race by changing the oil in our cars every 50,000 miles! The llama is a quadruped!"The Mad Hatter wrote:*sigh*
You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?
He would speak for hours on end, and often in beer halls, while the beer was still flowing.
"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."
- 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
The Mad Hatter wrote:And he damn well could have.FBM wrote:I'm imagining Hitler pounding the podium and screeching, "The German people are the best jelly donuts the world has ever seen! We will achieve the purity of our race by changing the oil in our cars every 50,000 miles! The llama is a quadruped!"The Mad Hatter wrote:*sigh*
You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?
He would speak for hours on end, and often in beer halls, while the beer was still flowing.

"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."
"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."
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
Yes, because we do not have a Ministry of Truth, or clearinghouse of facts to approve and reject certain statements as "outright lies." I have had discussions man times with people who say "this person lied!" I say, "give me an example," and they proceed to cite something with which they vehemently disagree, but which can't fairly be characterized as a "lie." And, "lie" involves an element of intent - merely speaking something that is incorrect is not the same as lying. When we believe we know a fact, and state it, it's only lying if we know it's not true.Psychoserenity wrote:When somebody has so much influence, is it acceptable for them to be spreading outright lies?Coito ergo sum wrote: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.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.
h
"Abuse of power" is a broad statement. You'd have to be specific about what a person did that constitutes that abuse of power. For example, did he or she take bribes? Sell political favors? What? In the context of free speech, I would need to know an example of an abuse of power that you're referring to.Psychoserenity wrote:
Perhaps what I'm getting at isn't so much a free speech issue, as an abuse of power issue.
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?Psychoserenity wrote:[
Sure there's a lot of choice with things like news but, given that Fox News regularly spreads absolute bullshit,
Seems no more difficult to change the dial from Fox than from any other channel.Psychoserenity wrote:[
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.
You want it to be unlawful for a person to voice their opinion that people are going to hell?Psychoserenity wrote:[
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.
It is precisely the hateful and the unpopular speech that we should most vigorously protect.Psychoserenity wrote:[
But like I said, I can't see any easy way around it without harming free speech for others.
Noam Chomsky, a guy with whom I disagree on many things, stated poignantly that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
John Milton said it well in his Areopagitica (a must read, IMHO), "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."
One of my favorite philosophers, John Stuart Mill wrote in his "On Liberty, " that "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. " I agree. EVEN IF we are sure that something is false, it should be protected.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Justice Potter Stewart That's the kind of sentiment that makes me wonder why so many Left leaning folks are so willing to sell their birthright down the river. Under the rubric of people being kind and good to each other, we would castrate our society.
Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson - Think of that one. It's always for the protection of other people that we seek to muzzle our fellow citizens. Nobody says "I shouldn't be allowed to read Mein Kampf." They say, "they" shouldn't be allowed to read it.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
They already have referred to Mr. Dawkins' work, the God Delusion, as hate speech in Turkey.Cunt wrote:would a good Muslim refer to Mr. Hitchens' work as 'hate crimes'?
Should his hatred be removed from civilized discourse?
Free speech isn't the problem - it's the solution.
- RuleBritannia
- Cupid is a cunt!
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:55 pm
- About me: About you
- Location: The Machine
- Contact:
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
It's also how they implode.FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.
RuleBritannia © MMXI
- 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
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.RuleBritannia wrote:It's also how they implode.FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.
"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."
"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."
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
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.FBM wrote: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.RuleBritannia wrote:It's also how they implode.FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.
- 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
You missed the Hitler clip? I can find more, if you like.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.FBM wrote: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.RuleBritannia wrote:It's also how they implode.FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.
"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."
"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."
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
And in every case I can only ever think of the absence of opposition. Hitler was Fox News without Jon Stuart.FBM wrote:You missed the Hitler clip? I can find more, if you like.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.FBM wrote: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.RuleBritannia wrote:It's also how they implode.FBM wrote:Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.
"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."
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
lol, also:
Gestapo.
Gestapo.
"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."
-
- "I" Self-Perceive Recursively
- Posts: 7824
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
- Contact:
Re: On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws
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.The Mad Hatter wrote: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 I suppose that could all be be avoided by education promoting science rather than simple facts.
---
Say for example when they were caught out, clearly falsifying figures, because their poll added up to 120%.Coito ergo sum wrote: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?Psychoserenity wrote:Sure there's a lot of choice with things like news but, given that Fox News regularly spreads absolute bullshit,

It may be quite funny, but how many things have they fabricated that haven't been caught out?
Not "a person" but perhaps "a person with massive power and influence".Coito ergo sum wrote:You want it to be unlawful for a person to voice their opinion that people are going to hell?Psychoserenity wrote: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.
I'm not saying I know what should be done about it, but I don't think it's right.
[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]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests