The Importance of Free Speech

Probably depends on the situation. Repeatedly saying it to the same person after being told to stop could be harassment. If it seems like the speaker is trying to get people riled up and violent, that would be fighting words or incitement to riot. If it seems like a threat, that's illegal. Otherwise, I don't think there wouldn't be any legal repercussions.

edited 14th Aug '12 2:43:47 PM by Boredman

I'm actually not in favor of preventing people from saying that.

I would tentatively be in favor of preventing people from saying "You know what someone should do? Kill all the gays." It really depends on whether the statement is used in order to suggest a course of action that leads to violence.

What? Huh?

Elaborate, if you wouldn't mind.

I guess Tomu's making a distinction between "X should die" and "We should cause X to die (i.e. kill X)".

Action should be punishable.

Conspiracy to punishable action is likewise punishable.

Speech, though not punishable on its own, can be utilized in the form of conspiracy.

Ergo, speech that conspires to engage in otherwise punishable actions should itself be punishable.

Specifics: advocating crimes should itself be punishable (albeit certainly to no greater an extent than the crimes themselves) where it constitutes a discernible effort to cause action that is itself punishable. Whether or not any given incidence is really "trying to get people to attack homosexuals" or merely "expressing frustration" is for the courts to decide. The argument that the courts will "wildly overstep their boundaries in order to prohibit anything resembling hate speech" is not supported by the empirical data.

NOTE: I don't think we should do this in America, because of the 1st amendment. But that's not because I think the policy itself is a bad idea, so much as that there's an extra "mental" cost to going against the constitution, and the net benefits of such a policy don't out-weight that cost. I feel the same way about some of the stricter forms of gun control (mostly outright bans).

Tomu, it seems we may have an agreement. And furthermore, though we'd need Lawyerdude or Vericrat or another legally-savvy troper to corroborate this, I think the law agrees with you.

I think that while you can say all kinds of hateful shit, the law actually doesn't allow you to incite, encourage, or proscribe, actually violence. That tends to fall under sedition, that is, you're willfully trying to subvert the established law and order.

Then how about this: in lieu of hate speech law specifically, what about a body of clauses that make it clearer that words which incite harassment, a hostile environment, violence, or violation of civil liberties in any form, are grounds for prosecution?

There would be no need to for legitimate "hate speech law", because there would a de-facto body of laws which did the same thing. But they would need to be tied together under a set of clauses which limited hate groups' ability to use Loophole Abuse and get around it.

Deal!

....And The Fandom Rejoiced.

Best. Deal. Ever.

All we need now is a fancy-ass name for the law.

How about the Incitement of Hatred, Harrassment, and Discrimination Act?

Better known as the Starship-Zeal Act.

edited 15th Aug '12 8:14:52 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Oh! I see! Leave me out, huh?

-cries-

Hmm, we could call it the TSHAZ Act. Tomu-Starship-Hopey-Abstract-Zeal. Or we could go with your first suggestion.

If you want that, we should make it more word-like.

TSHAZ

Shazt!

The Shazt Act (following European styling convention) or the SHAZT Act (following US styling convention). It sounds cooler.

edited 15th Aug '12 8:30:19 AM by Inhopelessguy

SHATZ.... well, that sounds like being edgey and cool... past tense version of having taken a shit.

"He took a shit. He shat." "Next time on SHATZ."

...

I refuse to have my name on such a piece of legislation!

I'd tentatively agree, depending on what we mean by "a hostile environment." The only definition that I'd accept for including that phrase would be if one defined it narrowly as "a localized, time-specific situation in which bodily harm is imminently likely"—or something to that effect. With that caveat noted, though, I could certainly go for a nice SHATZ.

edited 15th Aug '12 9:57:58 AM by Jhimmibhob

I think that some of the most violent political rhetoric-"There will be second amendment remedies!" should also fall into that category.

Unfortunately, Maxima just picked up an OTC ban, so this thread is almost certainly going to lose its vigor.

What! Why?

Gay Rights thread.

Explain please?

Well you can ask Maximia himself, it's only an OTC specific suspension. Anyway, off-topic.

Well, I'm back after serving my sentence. It seems there was a misunderstanding. I thought Eddie didn't want folks arguing over religion. Seems, he didn't want religion being discussed period.

Oh well, the episode kinda relates to my apprehension about hate speech laws. If such mix-ups happen so easily on a fiction site, imagine local and federal governments.

Don't be silly. Law is a lot more deliberative because of the serious implications it has. You're much more likely to have mix-ups in a setting like TV Tropes than you are in an actual court.

Point taken.

I'll describe the normal process to you just so you know what it is like in Canada...

• Some sort of infraction occurs, either perceived or real
• Person goes to human rights court over the matter and a council of officials discuss the matter and decide whether or not the infraction is "real", in the sense that it is bad enough to warrant a fine, restitution, apology or some sort of employment concern (wrongful termination etc)
• If the decision by the human right court is not satisfactory to either side and they feel they have a strong case, they can take it to real court, starting at provincial court
• Once in the court system you can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court
• If you make it past Federal appeals court system, the Supreme Court can choose to for no stated reason refuse to hear your case so as not to set a precendence

We also have a side system where judges can recluse themselves from a case where they feel there is a real or perceived conflict of interest or they do not possess the necessary skills to adequately preside over the trial.

A responsible system. The thing most people fear is that going through that process is time-, and I assume money-, consuming.