Trolling, Free Speech and the Law

Should we bring the mods in to lock the thread or something? Because this has gone nowhere and will never go anywhere unless the bad faith arguments end.

Not while we've got people making bad faith arguments to justify bigotry it won't. The argument can't conclude because there's no discussion actually being had.

I'd missed this earlier because it was edited in after I responded. Further evidence of bad faith:

You notice how it just says "some people's definitions" rather than pointing to a case made by anyone in this thread? Or pointing to any real life legislation for that matter? You notice how it studiously avoids bringing up what the uncle in question has actually said, or how it could fall afoul of hate speech laws?

No argument is being made here, just an effort to, at best, push one of us into violating forum policy by attacking a member of her family over something she can then claim is minor. It's a strawman argument, made against ill-defined positions that none of us hold, and nebulous laws that no country has on the books.

edited 18th Mar '18 9:54:28 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

@Ambar Sonof Deshar

This feels like an Appeal to Worse Problems fallacy, or even worse deflecting from elements in your own society because one feels they are doing better than their neighbor.

Also hate speech laws can be used as a weapon against people, who can be falsely accused of saying something they didn't. Defining hate speech under law is much harder than people think it is.

Yeah. That's why I said that this never will end.

Also, I might say that I'm even further than most people in this thread, I would actually like to make attempts to try to help bigots, put them on therapy until they become a decent human being.

But that should the job of the state, not of random individuals.

Limiting their Freeeeeeeeeedom to be assholes is the step one

I mean, when those worse problems are because America' love for the idea of "Absolute Freeeeeeeeeedom" , mentioning them is totally reasonable

I agree

That's why we can debate about what is (and isn't) Hate Speech. I'm totally willing to debate that with you. Seriously

But saying that we can't limit the freedom of criminals and punish them for being criminals.

Well...that's pretty naive. Sorry, but seriously, that's really naive and is based on a idea where people have a duty to suffer based on a idea of Abolute freedom

edited 18th Mar '18 10:04:22 AM by KazuyaProta

@Kazuya Prota

When countries with hate speech laws have do have the exact same problems or worse than America, I wouldn't say hate speech laws ultimately make things better.

edited 18th Mar '18 10:06:13 AM by firewriter

More bad faith I see. At this point I've got to conclude you're not even reading what I, or anyone else, writes. Canada has a lower incidence of hate crimes than America does. This is a product of our having laws that restrict what bigots can and cannot do. This is a statistical reality and one that you cannot argue against.

See, every time you try to deflect with "but hate crimes happen in Canada and here's this (likely out of context) link I found" you don't prove anything. Because no one has disputed that hate crimes take place in Canada. Simply that they happen with far less frequency than they do in America. Which they do.

For you to "win" this argument you'd have to prove that Canada has just as high a rate of hate crime as the United States. Which you can't do, because that's a statistical unreality. Sure, the rate has risen since 2016. So has the rate in America. Both are a product of Trump. But ours is still far far lower than yours.

You don't have an actual argument here. You haven't had one for pages at this point, because nothing you've said has actually been backed up with verifiable facts.

edited 18th Mar '18 10:12:00 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Hate speech laws are just like another Laws, done well, they are useful and help people

Done wrong, they harm a lot of people

If a country abuse its hate speech laws, well, that's bad.

But you can say the same of literally any law ever

I would say more of less this too

edited 18th Mar '18 10:12:38 AM by KazuyaProta

A bad government will abuse the prison system. Better open the doors and let all the inmates out. A bad government will abuse the tax code. Better abolish taxes. A bad government will put political opponents in mental wards; best stop treating the mentally ill. Etc, etc, etc. It's a meaningless argument.

Hey, you can find people that believes that unironically

@Ambar Sonof Deshar

The condescending dismal of criticism about hate speech laws really has been evident in this thread. People put trust that their government are only going to get the bad people and that's all should matter. I say it's putting too much trust that they won't abuse it, or the fact that they might end up hurting the people they are supposed to protect.

And one could also point out with jailing people for hate speech, it would lead to actually fueling the military prison complex system in this country. Especially when you get into account of black and white supremacist groups like Aryan Nation and Nation of Islam, prisons are their breeding ground. By throwing more people in jail, you might actually end having more recruits into these groups.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Fear-of-crime/Violent-hate-crime

I would like to point out that France and Sweden which have hate speech laws actually have more violent hate crimes than the USA.

Also this far right hate is not truly a product of Trump. I think putting it all on him would actually deflate how far right thinking can come back time and again. I believe even if we elected Hilary, the hate actually would have manifested and we still would have problems.

edited 18th Mar '18 10:23:20 AM by firewriter

"Nation master". That sounds like a nice, reliable source.

Your argument is in bad faith. We know this. You've made it abundantly clear, not least by your refusal to actually engage with the points that other people are making.

A bad government will abuse any and all laws. That is not a reason to avoid having laws. This point has been made a dozen times by a dozen different people and you have never, under any circumstances, engaged with it. It's not the only point you've refused to engage with—rather than making an actual argument, you just keep linking to nonsense sources and repeating yourself ad nauseum.

You've made it clear you don't actually know what hate speech laws constitute, a fact that the above post only reiterates with its claim that hate groups will get more members when people are jailed for hate speech—when in reality, to be punished for for hate speech you have to already be a member of a hate group (or as near to it as makes no difference). You've got no clue what you're talking about, or what position you're actually arguing against. Numerous people have pointed it out, but you just keep repeating yourself.

This isn't a debate. It's you taking over the forum and forcing everyone to refute your same couple points again and again. It's repetitive and it's dull.

edited 18th Mar '18 10:29:11 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

That link is a poll which asked people in different countries how worried about hate crime they were, not actual hate crime stats.

As was pointed out above, almost any law can be abused if it's employed in bad faith. If you don't trust the government to enforce the law in good faith, hate speech laws should be the least of your worries.

edited 18th Mar '18 10:27:29 AM by archonspeaks

Believe what you want. Hate groups were emboldened by Trump's election, and came to feel they could express themselves publicly and act on their bigotry. This is a fact; it's been studied.

Yeah, This and

firewriter Please. Stop now, you aren't gonna win.

If you want have a decent talk, we can discuss what ideally is a hate speech crime , I'm willing to discuss it. Seriously

edited 18th Mar '18 10:32:58 AM by KazuyaProta

I do think it's worth bring up because when you are open to the idea of restricting speech, it opens up the question of how much power does big government has. At the hands of local and private powers, it can be kept in check. However, with big government it's going to be a different story.

Germany's far right might not have swastikas, but they have taken to using other symbols as well. In essence, they actually code themselves so they can evade running into trouble with these laws. In some ways, that makes them dangerous because they are redesigning themselves.

"Big government". Classic libertarian scare tactic. Still not engaging with the points others have actually made. Again, should we open the prisons? Because there is no doubt the American government has abused the prison system.