Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
[Hate Speech]: how America (and the world) deals with it
Posts
We already have laws against inciting violence.
I recall that was stopped so a class on Hispanic history was stopped. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/08ethnic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
What is going on is selective privileging of some causal stories over others. Video games don't *really* cause mass shootings, but using the word "fag" *really* causes assault.
Acknowledging the difficulty in determining actual causal relationships, as opposed to correlation or coincidence, may behoove the conversation.
Any restrictions on free speech not flying off the rails are dependent on having a good government.
Do we have such a government? No. But that's not some flaw in design, it's a flaw in the population, since roughly half of us actively prefer bad government.
I'm arguing that it's quite possible to outlaw the "kill all fags" hate speech without banning video games and dancing and interracial marriage.
And it is!
Whether it's possible in America, given our current situation is an issue I have never addressed, and do not care to.
This argument really started, originally, when I felt that some forumers were being unfairly critical of an Albanian law. And their reasoning was based on what America is like, and I called that cultural jingoism.
Because Albania isn't America, nor is Canada or France.
That other countries can restrict really vile speech without flying off the deep end is a simple fact. That some countries cannot is also a fact.
That America probably would but can't because changing our Constitution is virtually impossible is a separate argument that I don't really care about at all.
tldr: see the bolded section.
I've read the book and that isn't what it argues. Moreover, Steyn ran into trouble with the HRC not for bad things he said about Islam, but for quoting an Imam in the Netherlands who was saying bad things about the west.
That is, in fact, basically what they did.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
I believe that was his point.
A person can call for the U.S. gov to declare certain hate speech illegal. But then they have to also accept that garbage like the above will be on the table.
With 66 Teapers between the house and the senate I'd personally rather not go for it.
No. Coulter's bodyguards felt the university in Ontario that they were going to speak at was unsafe, so she cancelled the appearance. She then flew out to Alberta and did her little racist ramble at the Red & White Club in Calgary (I'd know - I attended it). And, of course, the building ended-up being vandalized and a bunch of security guards who work at McMahon Stadium got trampled, which was so much better at the end of the day than just saying, "No, Coulter, we're not interested in your racist screed here. You can go fuck yourself."
The only persons actually banned from coming to do talks have been George Galloway & David Irving (and the photograph of Irving having his ass hauled out in handcuffs is easily worth the price of admission alone).
I don't where you got the information that, "Canada's hate speech laws prevent criticism of radical Islam," but it's a lie, and you should probably stop repeating lies that you read somewhere,
What is the special component to saying "God hates fags" that sends fag-haters into a violent rage, and does not exist when your Dungeon Master tells you to kill your parents and then yourself? How do you argue that the one is worthy of State restriction without also arguing that the other one is?
The argument that governments should have power to restrict speech is not granted - I can't think of a single nation with hate speech codes that hasn't had the law turned on its ear to silence someone that didn't deserve it.
Of course, their original plan for the nation was intensely aristocratic so no doubt they knew America would always suffer from a crapsack public, given the value they placed on educating the common people (which is to say: none).
Do I think we should retract the 1st amendment so we can have hate crimes statutes? Of course not. This country is a fucking mess. We're lucky our constitution is so hard to change. But that's luck not some proof that we're secretly the very best, because if we were we could have a more flexible government without immediately going 1984.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
Well you know, I think advocating ethnic solidarity is hate speech. But the pendulum will swing again, and the people you like will be in power, and when that happens remember that when the GOP was in charge, folks like me still believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict naughty things from being spoken by a free people.
As far as I can tell, Steyn never ran into any real trouble, there was never any ruling against him by the BC HRC. Unless that having him be held accountable for his words in something like is trouble. And there is nothing ive found of him being in trouble for quoting a Dutch Imam, it was mostly the islamophobia in his article, the whole race war thing that I'm getting from the entire thing.
As for if he actually wrote those things in his book, Ive never read it and im not about to buy it or try and pirate a PDF, but from the wikipedia page his major argument is that Muslims are having more births than western nations, and that they will immigrate to europe and take them over. Has he ever stated what the solution to that problem is in his book?
"I can't think of a single nation with murder laws that hasn't had the law turned on it's ear to prosecute someone innocent of murder."
See how you can do that with any law?
Same goes for me. That would mean no sanctions.
Oh noes. Problem.
eh?
Yes, but a lot of people want "no sanctions" hand in hand with a lot of other libertarian/anarchist ideals of "freedom". Not the world I want.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
Speech = murder in your country?
OK then.
We already have laws and regulations against speech that incites violence or is considered obscene.
Government restrictions on the things I don't.
Duh.
There's plenty of Republicans who favor an overturn of Roe vs. Wade and the reinstitution of sodomy laws.
So.
Yeah.
"People like you" meaning: your political party, ostensibly support the right of people to say things but are ever so comfortable accompanying us to the doctors office and our bedrooms to dictate to us what we do with our own fucking genitals.
I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing, so state restrictions on speech that supports genocide is a good thing.
In the book, his solution is to:
1: have more kids
2: stop allowing multiculturalism to turn into enclaves where western values like freedom of speech and equality for women are null and void, and integrate immigrants into the local population / culture.
3: If they don't like that, stop allowing so much immigration.
There is no discussion of violence or "race war" or suggestions of anything of the sort.
Yeah.
America also has a nasty history with racism, particularly in the more rural areas of the country, so I'd be in favor of hate speech restrictions that target that particular brand of malevolent stupid. Especially as it relates to propagating a lasting cultural undercurrent of racism across generations.
I literally cannot tell if you're being serious or not.
This thread is full of people who ardently believe that no advocacy speech, be it for genocide or slightly less vile crimes be absolutely free, and the only legal penalties be applied to people who actually do it.
To be fair, we managed to institute the Voting Rights Act without it turning into a shit show. I'd like to think we could do the same for the hypothetical Hate Speech Act.
No, you very silly goose, people like me meaning: Republicans who walk the fucking walk when it comes to supporting the rights of the individual over control of the State. I don't want a nation where the government can stop you from talking about abortion, and to get there, I need a nation where the government cant' stop you from talking.
False choice alert Batman.
How do you know what Limbaugh says is idiotic, moronic, and bigoted? Because someone made an argument in contravention of the ideas that he is espousing. He is free to be a fucking idiot, and I'm free to say he is a fucking idiot. The alternative is to allow the government to decide what is an acceptable idea to express.
Now maybe you think popular opinion is excellent. I mean, no one would ever think a majority of Americans (or Europeans or whatever) could possibly have some stupid ideas, right? For instance, the idea that a same sex couple could be just as loving and valid a pairing as a hetero marriage? If we allow majority consensus to determine what is an acceptable expression of ideas, that would never have been given the chance to get a foothold.
At one time blasphemy was treated much in the way of Hate Speech laws. Speaking out against the Lord could do real harm both in terms of your own eternal salvation and because you might convince others to not fully embrace Jesus and his dudes.
From John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which provides the philosophical basis for many of the liberal ideas that led to the repudation of racism/sexism/various and sundry -isms in popular thought on whether opinions should be repressed even when wrong:
It is especially galling that most advocates for prohibitions on speech deemed "hateful" would simultaneously espouse the benefits of multiculturalism and at least partially pluralistic society while prohibiting opinions they judge to be too harmful, too outside the normal, too heretical.
A society in which one is free to be oneself, and that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexuality or creed requires the ability to say that a society shouldn't treat everyone equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexuality or creed. Once you muzzle that minority opinion, you have undercut the very philosophy you are trying to protect.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But then again this two party system is so bloody ingrained that its going to take a major shakeup to get to a modern democratic structure.
I've already been over that twice, in some detail. Maybe you'll allow me a bit of shorthand now that I've demonstrated that I understand how we strike balances like this wrt the Bill of Rights?
I guess you missed the part where I did that, twice.
8->
Huge
All speech = totally equivalent in your mind?
The quote is about how any law can be abused, so talking in terms of, "This law could be abused, therefore the law is bad," is nonsense unless you want to espouse some libertarian ideal. I've cited an academic source for why harassment & verbal abuse are known to be damaging, and your reaction was basically a glib, "NUH UH," followed by later accusing Canada of being a police state & citing a racist idiot's popular press book (where he elaborates on a theory that good 'ol white Europe is being outbred by the dirty Muslims) as evidence, and then inserting some homophobic slurs into the thread for good measure.
It's almost as if you're not arguing in good faith.