Straw man for a straw man.
I always seem people thinking that if anyone ever touches the first amendment, we will all die in horrible flames... but the thing is, other people have these laws and they get along just fine.
It just seems to me that, yes, a person should have to treat other people like human beings. Forgive me for wanting that.
Let's you say it is and I say it's not. Now who is going to arbitrate between us? There isn't a single person on earth I trust with that task if the one he rules against is to be suppressed from ever expressing their views again. As long as free speech is protected, the one that is right will be able to use reasoned arguments to win more and more people over to his side over time.
edited 5th Aug '12 6:42:39 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><You say that because you agree with what they define as protected targets and acceptable targets. What happens when you don't agree?
Suppose you're pro-choice, but you live in a country where abortion is outlawed. You start telling people how you think a woman's right to control her body makes terminating a pregnancy acceptable, and you start organizing a campaign to legalize abortion. If your country has laws against hate speech, the government could shut down your campaign and penalize you for expressing your opinion; afterall, you're trying to deny fetuses their right to life.
Now suppose you're pro-life, but you live in a country where abortion is legal. You start telling people how you think a fetus's right to life makes terminating a pregnancy unaccaptable, and you start organizing a campaign to criminalize abortion. If your country has laws against hate speech, the government could shut down your campaign and penalize you for expressing your opinion; afterall, you're trying to deny women the right to do what they want with their own bodies.
At the moment, abortion remains enough of a hot-button topic in the Western world that no one's doing either of those things, but if the tide of public opinion shifted enough, the justification used for hate speech laws could be used against pro-choice or pro-life sentiments and a bunch of other political opinions.
Silly remarks don't qualify as serious debate. First, simple logic states that something as free thought suppression isn't a "do it today, tomorrow we're all being sentenced labor camps."
Next, even in the countries you hold up as an example, even they
realize that all too often "hate speech legislation" can easily jump the line into thought-policing
.
Now, for the people who constantly keep tossing out "Slippery Slope Fallacy", here's an example of how it's no fallacy. It's a fact that the "other side" in an issue will try to claim [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean
's_magazine 'hate speech' when they deem it appropriate]].
Of course this doesn't include the long list of countries that suppress free thought. Relatively benign examples like the People's Republic belie other examples like the aforementioned North Korea, or Cuba, certain Islamic countries, or even these very United States which are trying to keep things like evolution and homosexuality from being taught in schools.
So please, I ask, don't present this as some hollow ringing from people who want to be free to be dicks. There's a legitimate documented danger here.
Oh, and the straw argument of "Well these countries have hate speech laws and they aren't totalitarian dictatorships", to that I say "Yeah and there's countries that don't that aren't lawless Mad Max-like crapsack worlds, so..
edited 5th Aug '12 8:24:57 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorWow. That isn't even close to what I said.
Still not what I said. And you guys are accusing us of being strawmen?
And let me throw this question back at you: you say it isn't and I say it is. However, you don't get a vote because you aren't equal. Now who wins?
And the one who is wrong will be able to use Logical Fallacies (Hate Speech always uses Appeal to Consequences, Think of the Children! and Appeal to Fear) to convince people they are right or stall for time.
Oh, and the straw argument of "Well these countries have hate speech laws and they aren't totalitarian dictatorships", to that I say "Yeah and there's countries that don't that aren't lawless Mad Max-like crapsack worlds, so..
So then your point means nothing. Canada and the UK have "hiccups" with their hate speech laws, but so do we when it comes to the Constitution. For every UK preacher thrown in jail for preaching about homosexuality being a sin, how many gay people committed suicide because of harassment, were passed over for jobs, were beaten and/or killed, or barred from marriage?
So fine. If you don't want us to point to countries with Hate Speech Laws as a utopian example of how it should be, stop arguing that our position means "nobody can speak up" or other stupid stuff like that. Strawman for strawman.
edited 5th Aug '12 10:24:31 AM by KingZeal
Well, lets establish what you did say before we continue, then. Please correct me if any of the follow is incorrect:
1) You think that it is acceptable for the government to suppress the speech of people who are calling for legal actions that would infringe the "universal rights" of others.
2) When asked how to define these "universal rights" you said that you "start with what is important and work down".
3) What is "most important" would have to be determined by someone for this to take place.
Am I missing something?
That is correct. But stall for time will be all they are able to do. They will be unable to silence or suppress their opposition through their control of government.
<><2) When asked how to define these "universal rights" you said that you "start with what is important and work down".
3) What is "most important" would have to be determined by someone for this to take place.
Am I missing something?
Quite a lot, actually. So let's start with the premise that all people are equal, which is the lynchpin of this society. It's the only "universal right" that I'm speaking of here, because it's the one we rebelled against England to establish in the first place. That's what this entire country was based on, correct? So, that, and the pursuit of a "more perfect union" are the two axes up which everything else turns.
My argument is that part of the process of forming a "more perfect union" involves discouraging that which threatens the other point: equality. Nothing else in this nation matters unless everyone who participates in it are equal, so threats to that equality have to be marginalized or dealt with altogether.
"Stalling" is no small thing, though. The entire institution of American slavery stalled for time for more than a century (there were arguments for abolition) even before independence. In the mean time, millions suffered through it.
So all three of my statements are true, and you would like support of "equality" as interpreted by you to be a prerequisite for being allowed to speak?
Oh I agree. But if it were not for the guarantee of free speech, then at the time slavery had support among those in power they could have passed a law forbidding any citizen from "threatening the fabric of society" with their abolitionist rhetoric.
Basically, all of your views are based on the assumption that the people in power will always be "good" and ethically correct, when actual history indicates that that assumption is very ungrounded.
<><All three of your statements are loaded language, actually. And so is this statement. Equality is a concept that exists, by political defintion, separate from what I call it.
No they couldn't, because things would have to be unequal for slavery to exist in the first place.
And your argument is based on the assumption of a "Just World".
Namely, that everything that happens works out for the best.
I'm threadhopping a bit here but I'd like to point out that "free speech" has two components to it:
- Speaking out against government policy and the government silencing this political opposition
- Speech about other individuals/groups neither of which is related to the government
Those two are different situations. Freedom of speech/expression/whatever is normally the first. You can speak out against any government policy you like and the government can never touch you.
The second is where countries like Canada and UK draw the line. This is a very clear separation of political rights and "quality of life" argument. A white nationalist group can, and regularly does, complain about the totalitarian nature of Canada's hate-speech laws. However, if they go into a tirade that black people are criminal rapist scum that must be destroyed to prevent them from sexually assault white women, that goes straight into hate-speech land because it has nothing to do with the government and most definitely lowers the quality of life in Canada by introducing a toxic environment. And if you look at Canada's history in the past few decades, the number one reason KKK and other violent white-supremacist groups have died off in favour of intellectual-based white nationalist groups is because of these hate speech laws. They're still racist, sure, but they're acting in more non-violent "talky" manner so to escape the justice hammer.
I'm sure a black person would appreciate the difference between an angry lynch mob out to get the "black guy who did the crime" and a racist professor talking to his students about how blacks are criminals. While it takes a lot more than hate speech laws to get rid of racism, we can at least mitigate their negative effects.
No, I'm pretty sure his argument is based on assuming people to be too corrupt to be trusted with power.
Fight smart, not fair.The institution is directed by the mob, hence why neither politically powerful nor majority people should be trusted. I think, I'm trying to argue some elses point to a degree, but I do support most of the structure. Whether or not he agrees with my views is up for grabs so I'm not going to try and build an argument around his views.
Fight smart, not fair.It's impossible to define in a way that can be applied objectively to legal judgements, and which does not rely on your subjective judgements of value.
Again you assume that the people in power will always align with your idea of justice and that your idea of justice is indeed just.
I trust neither, therefore I oppose a situation where a faction could assert absolute control and suppress dissent. As long as it is not possible to suppress dissent, at least some of the time things will work out. If it is possible to suppress dissent, then as soon as imperfect leaders come to power we are screwed forever unless there is a violent and bloody upheaval, which is a Bad Thing.
Not it isn't: I don't buy the idea of a "Just World", at least not in material things (spiritual rewards and the afterlife aren't really relevant here). My view is that the world and people are generally messed up and therefore things run by people will tend to go wrong. In my judgement, firmly protected free speech has less potential to go horribly wrong than government suppression does, and I believe history and logic support that judgement.
edited 5th Aug '12 1:31:58 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><No it isn't. We can argue that it's difficult to completely define, but even our current Constitution requires that all people be equal to work. If there's no way to objectively define it, then the Constitution itself doesn't work.
No I'm not. You're still using a Semantic Slippery Slope. Once again, just because a concept is nebulous some of the time doesn't mean it's nebulous all of the time.
Again with this? See breadloaf's post. No one is saying this. This is a strawman argument.
Not really. History can be interpreted many different ways, and logic? Well, that's what we're currently debating in the first place.
As for people being messed up: sure, I can agree with that, but it's also irrelevant, because any system of authority is going to rely on people to create, define and enforce it. Neither what you or I argue is any diferent.
edited 5th Aug '12 1:45:18 PM by KingZeal
So fine. If you don't want us to point to countries with Hate Speech Laws as a utopian example of how it should be, stop arguing that our position means "nobody can speak up" or other stupid stuff like that. Strawman for strawman.
I'd advise to leave your emotions out of this and respond to the what was actually said and written. Nobody offered a straw argument and nobody argued your positions means nobody can speak up or "other stupid stuff like that".
Now then, let's start with your most flatly outrageous point. Free speech is not what causes gay people to commit suicide, get beaten or killed, passed over for jobs, or denied marriage, and you know it. There are those in the gay lobby who continue to draw this imaginary line from viewpoints to actions, and every time, it doesn't exist. We have laws to prohibit the actions you're talking about. We generally don't use laws to prohibit thoughts. And if there is a law you feel shouldn't be there, or there's not a law you think should be, we have methods for you to argue that point. Ironically, free thought and speech are the main tools you'd need in that instance.
Secondly, the point of pointing out the "hiccups" is not to say "See, hate speech laws don't work" nor was it to say "See, our way is flawless." That was a completely laughable counterpoint and clearly one you didn't think all the way through.
As I said in my post, the point is that even in countries with hate speech, even they understand that sometimes you have to be careful what qualifies as hate speech. They understand the Slippery Slope and have safeguards to prevent it's abuse which are underpinned by, you guessed it, free speech and freedom of thought.
On the flip side of that, as I stated before, this country actually has laws in place to prevent the sorts of things you're talking about. You can't say that being gay causes cancer or that homosexuals are predisposed to pedophilia.
And lastly, you can toss the word "hiccup", as is your 1st Amendment right. However there are dozens, hundreds, of articles from politicians, analysts, behavorial scientists, and sociologists, who are concerned withe the "hiccups" of hate speech laws or over-political correctness. So again, your benign view of it is just that, your view, and not necessarily a fact.
It was an honorWhat emotions? Several people have used straw arguments throughout the entire topic.
Sure, and hate speech laws don't result in people not being able to speak out against the government either. You know that, too.
See breadloaf's post. Yet again, you're strawmanning.
Seriously. Knock it off with the damn insults.
You have to be careful with any law, including free speech laws. That doesn't disprove anything that's been said.
What?! Since when can you not say that?
So what? They're free to debate it, just as we are. However, to turn that right back around on you, the coveted free speech laws are ALSO the subject of the exact same debates.
edited 5th Aug '12 2:50:26 PM by KingZeal
Starship, hate speech against gay kids causes them to commit suicide. That's just a fact. There is obvious correlation between the two, that has been proven to anyone willing to look. Remember that story about the school where no one is allowed to talk about homosexuality, so the teachers just ignore the gay kids getting bullied? They had a suicide rate so high that every single kid in the school had a friend who had committed suicide.
ninja'ed by Zeal. I'm going back to lurking.
edited 5th Aug '12 2:46:31 PM by Discar
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Just for the sake of sourcing: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/08/13/4050.aspx
I'm not convinced about these statistics myself, as hate crime statistics are notoriously hard to find on the interwebs.
- Speaking out against government policy and the government silencing this political opposition
- Speech about other individuals/groups neither of which is related to the government
Those two are different situations. Freedom of speech/expression/whatever is normally the first. You can speak out against any government policy you like and the government can never touch you.
The second is where countries like Canada and UK draw the line.
This is bang on the money.
edited 5th Aug '12 3:26:45 PM by TheBatPencil
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)As people said already, you have to have a clear definition of what counts as hate speech. Identifying what counts as bigotry isn't a black and white matter. What if someone has a very vocal distaste for a particular religious group? Is that hate speech, or is he just criticizing what he sees as wrong?
And likewise, just because something is wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be outlawed.
edited 5th Aug '12 4:21:47 PM by Boredman
(apologies for the double post)
@breadloaf
That isn't a very good definition. That only marks the difference between speech against the government and speech against other people. It gives no indication of where the "hate speech" line is drawn. What groups are protected? Are political ideologies treated like religions, or ethnicities? At what point does strong criticism become bigotry?
Not to mention, in any country with a democratic system, no group is unrelated to the government.
edited 5th Aug '12 4:34:42 PM by Boredman

You say people can have their rights thrown into question by "extenuating circumstances". Well, different people have different ideas of what qualifies as an extenuating circumstance, and the majority opinion regarding such things changes over time. What you're suggesting is that we take the law's current ruling on who gets what rights and forbid anyone from ever changing or questioning it. That's profoundly undemocratic.
edited 5th Aug '12 5:49:08 AM by RavenWilder