Deboss, initally several elected officials, including Mayors Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, Thomas Menino of Boston, Edwin Lee of San Francisco, and others wanted to not allow them to even open new stores.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg among others pointed out there was no leg for them to do that and stand on.
It was an honorTo be honest, I don't oppose Chicago saying "no, you can't have a store here" except that it's out of their authority. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. The problem was that it was out of their authority.
Obviously, if they're funding criminal enterprises-as hate speech groups are criminal enterprises-then of course they should be treated negatively by the law. But I should note, firms opposing gay marriage isn't enough to be labeled a criminal enterprise. You really have to go one up and be the Westboro Baptist Church or the like-actively antagonizing people into attacking you and then suing them or something like that.
My point exactly. Much of what myself, Abstract, Raven, and others are saying becomes clear if you check out the Gay Rights and America thread when the whole Chick-Fil-A thing blew up.
You had people saying Cathy funded hate groups and that alone made it legal to discriminate against Chick-Fil-A. If you read through that thread you see just how suspect most people's grasp of freedom of speech is. And the worst part is, many of them, when corrected, only got more recalcitrant.
You can feel however you want about a business, and if you want to, you have no obligation to patronize them. But you cannot block a law-abiding business out of your own personal disgust with their practices.
You are right, it's completely outside of their authority, and deliberately so, because the Founding Fathers, for all their shit, were smart enough to know that these were precisely the kind of abuses that would occur.
Again, with the backing of hate speech laws, their arrogant presumption would've been even more difficult to stop.
edited 14th Aug '12 9:31:53 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorAgain, that depends on the specific legislation. If the legislation was unjust-it criminalized activity that should not be criminal-you have a point. However, if the activity should indeed be criminal, then Chik-Fil-A, donating to criminal sponsors, would itself be criminal.
You keep insisting on talking in the abstract, because I don't think there's been a single real-life instance of hate speech legislation that we've brought up that you've actually been opposed to.
Well put, and there we have it in a nutshell. I believe there are also existing laws against direct suborning of felonies, treason, and similar malfeasance. In other words, the kind of speech that poses direct threats to public order and the safety of others is already proscribed. And there is no other kind of speech under the sun that ought to be proscribed—though in any functioning civil society worthy of the term, many extremes of opinion ought to serve as a de facto expulsion ticket from polite company.
Maxima: There are no laws prohibiting what the groups Chik-Fil-A donates to. If there were indeed laws prohibiting what those groups do, you would need to see what those laws are.
Why not give an example of a law that would make one of the firms Chik-Fil-A contributes to criminal, and then ask whether or not Chik-Fil-A donating to a now criminal organization makes prohibiting their localization in Chicago right or wrong.
For instance, those little camp things where they basically yell at you continuously until you say you're not gay-the conversion camps. Should those remain legal? If they were made illegal and the firms that fund those camps continue to fund them, and Chik-Fil-A funds said criminal enterprises, should Chicago still be all like "Chil-Fil-A, come on dooooooooown?"
@King Zeal
You're not understanding my point. I'm talking about formulating hate speech laws if they would outlaw views. Your post is hate speech in a much narrower sense, which I already
answered
multiple
times
.
I cannot, however, run around naked in public places to push my viewpoint.
Similarly, hate groups have whatever means at their disposal to spread their ideas to private or political parties. They shouldnt be allowed to harm the peace of others with it.
Being naked in public is not a viewpoint so I don't know why you're bringing that up.
King Zeal, don't assume that you have to disagree when you respond to me. In the end, you're largely repeating what I said already.
Now using Trivialis handle.But, I repeat, NO ONE is talking about this. Why do you keep bringing it up?!
Oh it can be a viewpoint as much as hate speech can.
Because you keep repeating straw positions that have nothing to do with what anyone is arguing.
That doesn't address his point. It's an abstract if you can't name an example of hate speech laws in practice that have resulted in totalitarianism.
edited 14th Aug '12 11:13:11 AM by KingZeal
Indeed.
I've made it crystal clear that I didn't imply that just any hate speech laws will silence views. I said that if someone is proposing that society filter out unwanted views, I would oppose it. I was responding to breadloaf about this point because I wanted to be sure what he thought of this. Now I know.
Every time I thought we reached a common ground, some post seems to challenge it, and I have to repeat myself. I hope we're done now.
Summary:
- Simply yelling insults just out of spite and "throwing rocks" is hate speech.
- Actual legit arguments with aim to proper discourse (e.g. criticisms towards homosexuality or smoking or whatever, that is formulated in this manner) is not hate speech.
- I assume everyone agrees with this.
edited 14th Aug '12 11:37:18 AM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.I cannot, as I don't know enough about the affairs of other countries to make an informed comment.
But...what does that have to do with what I said?
To me that's like somebody saying we cannot permit the release of a biologically engineered virus into a civilian area and being told "where can you show the actual effects of a biologically engineered virus into a civilian area?" The point of arguing this is to not have to actually find out.
It was an honorMaxima, the point is, there are examples of hate speech legislation in other countries that have not fallen into totalitarianism.
The better analogy is "If we put flouride in the water, the government will control everyone's minds!" "Okay, so why isn't the government controlling everyone's minds in the UK?"
Unless you can prove that it improves the dental care of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
Anyway, it's just an analogy. The reason I brought it up is because your reasoning is similar to the people who claimed that it was a communist plot.
edited 14th Aug '12 12:30:05 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
In the same way, "I think homosexuality is wrong" is a viewpoint. "Hey, fag, I hope you choke on a cock and die!" is not.
Besides that, naked protests are quite common.
edited 14th Aug '12 12:42:12 PM by KingZeal

I have no interest in protecting people from the consequences of their beliefs. Only in protecting their right to have beliefs and protecting the people whose peace they potentially violate.
edited 14th Aug '12 7:29:00 AM by KingZeal