UK hate speech laws don't protect people, they victimize free expression

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

I imagine this will be rather divisive, but I'm going to come right out and say it -- I agree wholeheartedly that putting people in jail for saying vile things hurts the public more than helping it, and sets a dangerous precedent.

Free expression is a basic human right that should not be allowed to become the sole province of the Fear Gland Brigade.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, usually mistakenly attributed to Voltaire

Tweeting racist or otherwise libelous bile can land you in jail in the UK, but the victim, as ever, is not the target of the tweet but free speech.
When Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman briefly melted down in a post-game interview Sunday, shouting something about his superior skills as a football player and the relative insignificance of a player on the opposing team, the Internet did what the Internet does best: In high dudgeon, it sputtered, typed in all caps, and excreted hundreds of witless tweets. Well, most of it was witless. Some of it, predictably, was racist. A young lad named Travis Ozegovich, representing the latter category, tweeted “Richard Sherman = typical nigger.”

Now, there is likely no person on Earth that I would want to have a drink with less, much less befriend or employ, than a young troglodyte like Travis Ozegovich. And by dribbling out his racist bile on Twitter—and by me writing about it, repeating his name for the spiders and robots of Google—it seems that Travis Ozegovich will have a rather difficult time convincing future friends and employers that he isn’t a racist moron. Mostly because the available evidence suggests that he is.

But imagine if we could levy punishment—fines and jail time, piled on top of the standard obloquy and backlash—on Ozegovich for the crime of being a sad little racist. And imagine if we could deputize bureaucrats and police pencil-pushers to trawl Twitter in search of other sad little racists, filling our already overstuffed prisons with even more racists. In the United States, thankfully, we crowdsource our anti-racism efforts, leaving the public shaming to websites like Deadspin, which flagged Ozegovich’s dead-on George Wallace impression and apparently forced him to shutter his Twitter and Facebook accounts.

But there are plenty of places where people like Ozegovich would be remanded into police custody for their knuckle-dragging comments. Because while an American sports star was being abused on Twitter, sports fans in the United Kingdom were venting their anger at various stars and coaches in various professional soccer leagues—and drawing the attention of prosecutors.

Like the chip shop employee with 23 Twitter followers—all close friends—who vented this measured and enlightened critique of Celtic manager Neil Lennon’s coaching style on the microblogging service. “I seriously do wish that someone would kill that ugly ginger cunt.” It was retweeted an astonishing zero times.

Yes, yes. One shouldn’t be in the business of threatening to kill professional athletes and their coaches, no matter how much their decisions or substandard play ruin your afternoon. And threats of violence, even if hyperbolic and meant in jest, are something rather different than cruelty towards “gingers” (though this is likely also an offense. The flame-haired children of the United Kingdom gathered in London recently to protest wide-spread discrimination against red heads). Had he joked at a pub, and within the earshot of a concerned constable, "I could kill Neil Lennon for that coaching decision," does anyone imagine that the boozy chip merchant would have ended up in the back of a police car? But on Twitter, the man with a half dozen followers and no retweets is presumed to either be a homicidal madman or in possession of the power to suborn murder.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/23/can-a-tweet-land-you-in-prison-it-certainly-will-in-the-uk.html

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:07 pm

Catman wrote:
Queen Of Hearts wrote:

I'm sorry that you're such a delicate little flower that you need a law to stop people from saying mean things to you.
Do you start bursting into tears every time someone says the word "fag" or something?

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland.

Because I respond to people making desperate attempts to throw shit at me that means I support people being arrested for hurting someone's feelings?
Because I disagree with abortion that means I support people being arrested for hurting someone's feelings?
Because I contest Sassy's massive exaggerations about Catholicism and Ireland that means I support people being arrested for hurting someone's feelings?

No, it doesn't.

Phil, you're a fucking retard who doesn't know what hypocrisy is and the only thing you're capable of doing is try and throw a bunch of words together to make desperate insults.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland.

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

The hate speech laws are quite specific and direct, and they were put in place, due to all the attacks.

Normally, the only people that complain about them are the RWhingers, sore that they don't have the freedom to abuse others at will as they once did.

by Irn Bru Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:10 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:
Queen Of Hearts wrote:

I'm sorry that you're such a delicate little flower that you need a law to stop people from saying mean things to you.
Do you start bursting into tears every time someone says the word "fag" or something?

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland.

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

Calling someone a derogatory and offensive name face to face it could be directly inciting violence though, couldn't it?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:14 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

The hate speech laws are quite specific and direct, and they were put in place, due to all the attacks.

Normally, the only people that complain about them are the RWhingers, sore that they don't have the freedom to abuse others at will as they once did.

You just cant stand the fact that RWhingers as you call them are adult enough to be able to deal with abuse without having to run crying to authorities.

Hate speech laws were because the LWimpies were screaming so loud about their hurt feelings they were able to confuse the amoeboid intelligences that represent the authorities into thinking that calling someone a name was the same as physically attacking them.

Of course the net result is the authorities are now so busy chasing people who say nasty things they do not have the time or resources to stop actual physical violence.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:14 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

Calling someone a derogatory and offensive name face to face it could be directly inciting violence though, couldn't it?

How could it?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:17 pm

Queen Of Hearts wrote:
Catman wrote:

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland.

Because I respond to people making desperate attempts to throw shit at me that means I support people being arrested for hurting someone's feelings?
Because I disagree with abortion that means I support people being arrested for hurting someone's feelings?
Because I contest Sassy's massive exaggerations about Catholicism and Ireland that means I support people being arrested for hurting someone's feelings?

No, it doesn't.

Phil, you're a fucking retard who doesn't know what hypocrisy is and the only thing you're capable of doing is try and throw a bunch of words together to make desperate insults.

Rubbish.

I may be far from being the best debater on here, but you have been shown up numerous times for being 'retarded' as you put it.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:21 pm

I wonder if you would be using the word 'retarded' so easily if a member of your family ended up in an accident, and suffered brain damage etc...I doubt that you would you fucking moron.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Calling someone a derogatory and offensive name face to face it could be directly inciting violence though, couldn't it?

How could it?

well for example a person telling a person who is the child of parents who died in the holocaust that his parents deserved to die and be exterminated by the Nazi's?

Would that maybe incite violence?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:25 pm

Catman wrote:I wonder if you would be using the word 'retarded' so easily if a member of your family ended up in an accident, and suffered brain damage etc...I doubt that you would you fucking moron.

What about all the brain damaged/learning disabled people who happily and knowledgeably refer to themselves as retards?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:I wonder if you would be using the word 'retarded' so easily if a member of your family ended up in an accident, and suffered brain damage etc...I doubt that you would you fucking moron.

What about all the brain damaged/learning disabled people who happily and knowledgeably refer to themselves as retards?

Bullshit.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:28 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland.

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

Interesting which brings me back to the point you could never answer.

Have you ever been subjected daily to people discriminating against you because of your skin colour using constant offensive language?

How do you think views of hate formulated into violence against the Jews throughout history?

Or any religious of ethnic group?

This is a serious point have you seen what groups of people have been subjected to with name calling and where it can lead to?

Violence by those who believe it, suicide for the victim in some cases being pushed to the limits.

How much does one have to endure before you understand that verbal abuse can lead and does to far worse and also neglecting the affect it has on those who suffer such abuse

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How could it?

well for example a person telling a person who is the child of parents who died in the holocaust that his parents deserved to die and be exterminated by the Nazi's?

Would that maybe incite violence?

So saying their parents deserved to die would result in the child being attacked?

Inciting violence does not refer to what happens to the idiot that said something.

Example

"Hes a retarded puff nigger - kick his head in" Should be illegal because it is inciting violence not because it is hate speech

"Hes a learning disabled homosexual black man - kick his head in" should be illegal because it is inciting violence even though it is not hate speech

"Hes a retarded puff nigger - lets go somewhere else" should not be illegal because it does not incite violence even though it is hate speech.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:35 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

Interesting which brings me back to the point you could never answer.

Have you ever been subjected daily to people discriminating against you because of your skin colour using constant offensive language?

How do you think views of hate formulated into violence against the Jews throughout history?

Or any religious of ethnic group?

This is a serious point have you seen what groups of people have been subjected to with name calling and where it can lead to?

Violence by those who believe it, suicide for the victim in some cases being pushed to the limits.

How much does one have to endure before you understand that verbal abuse can lead and does to far worse and also neglecting the affect it has on those who suffer such abuse

Read bens opening post about why he as an American is glad his society preserves free speech even though as a society it deals with the same problems you describe.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:35 pm

Anybody have any stats on whether hate crimes have gone up or down since the stricter hate speech laws?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here in the U.S. we see things quite differently; the far left here does not call for curbs on free expression and it's generally the Fear Gland Brigade that's calling for censorship, of gay themes on shows, violence in video games, etc.

The ACLU is often considered a far-left organization, but they defend the free speech of everyone. They've paid for lawyers for skinheads and the KKK; they successfully defended an anti-abortion pastor's right to hold up a sign with a gruesome photo of an aborted fetus in front of an abortion clinic.

The satirical website The Onion parodyed the ACLU with a story headlined: "ACLU defends right of neo-Nazis to bomb ACLU headquarters"

The history of Europeans is a lot different than those of us, far off, across the pond, Ben. Add to that, the US has the First Amendment, freedom of speech/press clause in its Constitution:

Constitutional Amendment One wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

We had this discussion a lot over on Speak Free. Europeans saw with Hitler, first hand, how some speech can cause problems--to say the least. Perhaps the First Amendment should be rewritten to speak of Rational Speech. Certainly free speech can do a lot of damage.

For this reason, there has been a rise post-WWII in laws curtailing speech that is hateful or harmful. Germany is way off the chart on this...but the UK has a lot of it as well. I think you can understand...we didn't live through that.

We have hate laws as well, but it's usually coupled with action...beatings, assault and such. It's usually an enhancement in sentencing, for an otherwise simple assault and battery charge. If it curtails simply the language, it runs smack into the First Amendment.

While you are on the subject, take a look at the writings of Herbert Marcuse...in particular, One Dimensional Man. (Marcuse is the professor who made Berkeley so radical). Or, take a look at his 1965 essay, Repressive Tolerance. Here it is:

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

We once had a free market of goods and securities. At the turn of the century (1900) we saw clearly what free markets could do to actually restrain freedom...I'm talking monopoly and restraint of trade practices. We passed a spate of laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act, to rein in such practices. The Supreme Court also rejected substantive due process, in particular in the sense that it might mean freedom to contract.

Marcuse brings out a similarity between freedom of speech and freedom to contract. Essentially, both confront what happens when there is an open, ungoverned market, be it an economic market or a marketplace of ideas. In such a free market there is a definite advantage to the established brands and commodies...and, in the marketplace of ideas, there is an advantage to the preexisting beliefs and metaphors that form the basis of political ideas. The established create, or can create a monopoly. The unestablished, or emerging ideas, are immediately at a disadvantaged. To counteract that imbalance, Marcuse argues that there should be a form of repressive tolerance.

This was not a new idea. Undoubtedly, Ben, you read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1831), in university. In particular, you would have spent a lot of time on the chapter, Tyranny of the Majority. Toqueville was basically privileged back in France, so his introduction was something of a conservative lament. But he pointed out a radical view: Democracy inhibits innovation. Rational discussion tends to become extremely conservative. Whereas, once aristocratic thinkers brought out new ideas, a democracy has no such individuals and the wave of democratic thinking tends to be highly conservative. It is this theme that Herbert Marcuse was picking up in the 1960's--albeit in a highly radical form.

Look at what happens on this very website. There are two basic forces: guys like andy, shady and drinky are all conservative. Look at how they express themselves...they use 18th-century monetary metaphors: you have obligations; in other words, you have to pay the piper; we seek rewards; we earn our reputation; fairness is being balanced; if we offend or cheat someone, we can expect payback; we have a moral accounting; if we harm someone, we have to make restitution. There is a whole moral code built around monetary metaphors. Is it any wonder that conservatives think in terms of revenge and punishment...in simple economic terms. Anything that the lefties come up with is, of course, small change. And with this moral language advantage, the political and economic ideas become entrenched. New ideas have no defense for this.

The new ideology was a long time in coming. Frankly, it began with Jesus Christ. No, I'm not going all religious...I'm not a believer in the bearded old man in the clouds, but I do believe in Christian Charity. The whole god thing was to attract attention; his message was something far away from the money metaphor. It was humanism. And humanism is the opposite of conservatism. Concern for the social being--the well-being of us--is the opposite of selfishness...the core of conservatism.

That is why humanism has risen with democracy. Democracy is handing over of control, from god, to aristocracy, and finally to the real humans. But we still have to deal with the entrenched language problem. We still have to override conservatives, who are anti-humanists. That's why when we liberals are showing concern for benefits and peoples' disadvantages, for equality of blacks, women, gays, Hispanics...conservatives are returning to the language. The language leads them and not the other way around. Language is entrenched. And entrenchment is the problem with progress in ideology.

What is being prevented? It is fulfillment of our social awareness and being. Not to be too much of a Marxist about it, but there is a certain progress to history. From the god of the Old Testament evolved the entrenched Church (Christ aside). From the Roman Church evolved the Renaissance, the Reformation, and awareness of science, physics as well as leveling ideas such as democracy and equality. Each time, conservatives went back to the old language, progressive thinkers employed the elasticity of their minds. But the advantage has always been with the language and its old ideas.

So, freedom of speech is not the gift you thought it was.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:36 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody have any stats on whether hate crimes have gone up or down since the stricter hate speech laws?

Stats would be worse than useless - the definition of hate speech is the perception of the victim not the intent of the accused.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:37 pm

If free speech can do damage then we must never stifle it. It can bring down corporations, governments, regimes and whole countries.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:41 pm

Also, just to pontificate a bit more:

To shut down the speech of bigots makes it seem like you don't have an answer for what they say. Instead of refuting hate with reason, why make martyrs out of those who say hateful things?

I much prefer our way, where you're not terrified to say anything that might be misconstrued into something that will cost you your freedom, but you know if you cross that line the rest of society will have something to say about it and it could cost you your reputation.

We've all been hated by some people in our lives, no matter what group we come from -- whether it's the black group, the gay group, the big-ears group, the too-many-freckles group or the slow-on-the-uptake group or whatever. People either learn to deal with this and put their tormentors into a little group of "people who needn't be bothered with" in their minds, or they give everyone else the power to devastate them with a word.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

well for example a person telling a person who is the child of parents who died in the holocaust that his parents deserved to die and be exterminated by the Nazi's?

Would that maybe incite violence?

So saying their parents deserved to die would result in the child being attacked?
No the child attacking those who said it, thus it coud lead to violence

Inciting violence does not refer to what happens to the idiot that said something.
As seen it does

Example

"Hes a retarded puff nigger - kick his head in" Should be illegal because it is inciting violence not because it is hate speech

"Hes a learning disabled homosexual black man - kick his head in" should be illegal because it is inciting violence even though it is not hate speech

"Hes a retarded puff nigger - lets go somewhere else" should not be illegal because it does not incite violence even though it is hate speech.

Oh yes it should be illegal, because that person is being subjected to discrimination because of his race, his sexuality, and his mental capacity, why should he suffer such abuse?

Tell me why is it because he has dark skin someone can then racially abuse him, without any consequence for such hatred directed at someone who suffers this just by walking out the door where he cannot hide his skin colour, as he is black, you see him bright as day, but he knows because of his colour he will be discriminated because of it, so why should he endure that? People who are discriminated against can suffer significant negative consequences. General well-being, self-esteem, self-worth, and social relations can be severely impacted as a result of discrimination.
So you think that is okay then and it is not a crime when people are constantly subjected to being treated less than you are yourself, why?

You fail to understand how such hate left unchecked can spread like a virus and become acceptable to the point I can show you where just calling a Jew a blanket led to far worse, because a society grew up thinking it was okay just to call people they did not like names.

Do you really wanna go there?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody have any stats on whether hate crimes have gone up or down since the stricter hate speech laws?

Stats would be worse than useless - the definition of hate speech is the perception of the victim not the intent of the accused.

Exactly right

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:43 pm

Free speech is an illusion, as there is consequences for some things we say, thus it ceases to be free.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:44 pm

Free speech enabled the Berlin wall to come down, it allowed black South Africans to be treated as human beings and it also enable Cannon and Ball to be removed from our TV screens.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:44 pm

Warren Moon wrote:If free speech can do damage then we must never stifle it. It can bring down corporations, governments, regimes and whole countries.

But look what happens in reality. More often, it supports corporations over humanism.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:45 pm

catman wrote:
I may be far from being the best debater on here, but you have been shown up numerous times for being 'retarded' as you put it.

Wow, you really are delusional.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:If free speech can do damage then we must never stifle it. It can bring down corporations, governments, regimes and whole countries.

But look what happens in reality. More often, it supports corporations over humanism.

You've been at the funny fags again.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:47 pm

Sorry, I missed your post, OQ. I just have to say I disagree with it. I believe free expression is a fundamental right, and that abridging it is ultimately far more damaging than having to deal with hate speech.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:47 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Also, just to pontificate a bit more:

To shut down the speech of bigots makes it seem like you don't have an answer for what they say. Instead of refuting hate with reason, why make martyrs out of those who say hateful things?

I much prefer our way, where you're not terrified to say anything that might be misconstrued into something that will cost you your freedom, but you know if you cross that line the rest of society will have something to say about it and it could cost you your reputation.

We've all been hated by some people in our lives, no matter what group we come from -- whether it's the black group, the gay group, the big-ears group, the too-many-freckles group or the slow-on-the-uptake group or whatever. People either learn to deal with this and put their tormentors into a little group of "people who needn't be bothered with" in their minds, or they give everyone else the power to devastate them with a word.

That's what you would say if speech were truly free. But it's not, and that's the point.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:47 pm

Warren Moon wrote:Free speech enabled the Berlin wall to come down, it allowed black South Africans to be treated as human beings and it also enable Cannon and Ball to be removed from our TV screens.

It did many of those things I agree and for many good deeds done but again do we really have free speech.

No as there is always consequences for some.

How many who went to school got away with telling their teacher to fuck off?

Was there a consequence?

Of course, as there is for many things we say.

So yes Free speech is needed I back it but as people are not responsible with free speech limitations have been set, and you find this happens within your work place at home and in every day life.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:49 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, I missed your post, OQ. I just have to say I disagree with it. I believe free expression is a fundamental right, and that abridging it is ultimately far more damaging than having to deal with hate speech.

That's why I recommend the whole body of thought from Toqueville to Marcuse.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:50 pm

I also think if we give up on the ability of human beings to progress in society through free discourse, we may as well give up on human society altogether.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:50 pm

Free speech is a contradiction, just as a free market is a contradiction. The established always has the advantage.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:52 pm

Free expression is an illusion, when the metaphors and similes are written into the language.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:54 pm

The old idea is already established. So the new idea is climbing uphill from the start.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:56 pm

If you want to talk about progress and justice, what do you think the masses are more likely to accept? The comfortable, entrenched idea? Or, the radical, and uncomfortable new idea?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:57 pm

I'll have what Quill has been smoking please.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:Free expression is an illusion, when the metaphors and similes are written into the language.

Glad we are on a par with this Quill, it has always been my belief it is an illusion as I said earlier!

From our earliest moments in life we are told not to say certain things and with consequences when we do which continues through our lives.
Of which many will teach their own children the same, thus denying them by their own logic free speech?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:57 pm

To the extent that justice require change, the conservative has the vast advantage.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:If you want to talk about progress and justice, what do you think the masses are more likely to accept? The comfortable, entrenched idea? Or, the radical, and uncomfortable new idea?

You can't force change, though. It's never worked. You can encourage it, cultivate it and make winning arguments in favor of it, but you can't reach into a person's mind and force them to change their beliefs.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:59 pm

Warren Moon wrote:I'll have what Quill has been smoking pleas.

LMAO...gotta slip away for now. Be back.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:01 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Original Quill wrote:If you want to talk about progress and justice, what do you think the masses are more likely to accept? The comfortable, entrenched idea? Or, the radical, and uncomfortable new idea?

You can't force change, though. It's never worked. You can encourage it, cultivate it and make winning arguments in favor of it, but you can't reach into a person's mind and force them to change their beliefs.

Well, ideas are not force. Yet, still with them the conservative has the advantage.

Look, I recognize that there is an advantage in staying with the main body of the culture. Conservatism is protection, in a sense. But some new ideas are deserving...and yet they face the uphill climb.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:02 pm

Anyway, think about it. I'll be back in a half hour. I'll stay connected.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So saying their parents deserved to die would result in the child being attacked?
No the child attacking those who said it, thus it coud lead to violence

Inciting violence does not refer to what happens to the idiot that said something.
As seen it does

Example

"Hes a retarded puff nigger - kick his head in" Should be illegal because it is inciting violence not because it is hate speech

"Hes a learning disabled homosexual black man - kick his head in" should be illegal because it is inciting violence even though it is not hate speech

"Hes a retarded puff nigger - lets go somewhere else" should not be illegal because it does not incite violence even though it is hate speech.

Oh yes it should be illegal, because that person is being subjected to discrimination because of his race, his sexuality, and his mental capacity, why should he suffer such abuse?

Tell me why is it because he has dark skin someone can then racially abuse him, without any consequence for such hatred directed at someone who suffers this just by walking out the door where he cannot hide his skin colour, as he is black, you see him bright as day, but he knows because of his colour he will be discriminated because of it, so why should he endure that? People who are discriminated against can suffer significant negative consequences. General well-being, self-esteem, self-worth, and social relations can be severely impacted as a result of discrimination.
So you think that is okay then and it is not a crime when people are constantly subjected to being treated less than you are yourself, why?

You fail to understand how such hate left unchecked can spread like a virus and become acceptable to the point I can show you where just calling a Jew a blanket led to far worse, because a society grew up thinking it was okay just to call people they did not like names.

Do you really wanna go there?

No you dont get it.

Making abuse illegal gives it a power it otherwise would not have.

Read what Ben says - he lives where it is allowed and yet is far rarer because the fact that it is not illegal means people have to be responsible for what they say.

Calling someone a name because of their whatever is not discriminating against - it is abuse.

Here because of the law people do no hear the abuse - they simply think "that guys in trouble he could get sent down for that" In the states people hear it and think "I will not have anything to do with that guy and make sure noone else will"

Here the person spouting the hate manages to spread the hate because people object to what happens to them because of what they say - the hater becomes the victim and the victim becomes more hated. In the US the person spouting the hate becomes hated and villified and the victim becomes supported.

Yes lines need to be drawn to prevent hate but trying to draw them in the language is the wrong place.

We can and do legislate about violence. We can stop actions - we cannot and should not attempt to stop thought and feelings and that includes peoples right to express how they feel.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:Anyway, think about it. I'll be back in a half hour. I'll stay connected.

I have, and I've concluded that conservatives are always going to act as an anchor on society that prevents the speed of change we'd like to see, and will always force (or seek to force) certain groups of people to suffer as second-class citizens or worse.

The only way around this is to make conservatives themselves into second-class citizens, which would make us hypocrites.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:06 pm

Sphinx you're a cold hearted bitch but that post was bloody brilliant!

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:13 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Oh yes it should be illegal, because that person is being subjected to discrimination because of his race, his sexuality, and his mental capacity, why should he suffer such abuse?

Tell me why is it because he has dark skin someone can then racially abuse him, without any consequence for such hatred directed at someone who suffers this just by walking out the door where he cannot hide his skin colour, as he is black, you see him bright as day, but he knows because of his colour he will be discriminated because of it, so why should he endure that? People who are discriminated against can suffer significant negative consequences. General well-being, self-esteem, self-worth, and social relations can be severely impacted as a result of discrimination.
So you think that is okay then and it is not a crime when people are constantly subjected to being treated less than you are yourself, why?

You fail to understand how such hate left unchecked can spread like a virus and become acceptable to the point I can show you where just calling a Jew a blanket led to far worse, because a society grew up thinking it was okay just to call people they did not like names.

Do you really wanna go there?

No you dont get it.

Oh I get it you have no case here

Making abuse illegal gives it a power it otherwise would not have.
A power to dominate and control which can and does lead to?
Take your time

Read what Ben says - he lives where it is allowed and yet is far rarer because the fact that it is not illegal means people have to be responsible for what they say.
No he does not live where there is free speech as there is consequences on some speech, something you do not understand

Calling someone a name because of their whatever is not discriminating against - it is abuse.
It is both, so you are telling me calling someone a black wanker is not discriminating against that person by mentioning the colour of his skin?

Here because of the law people do no hear the abuse - they simply think "that guys in trouble he could get sent down for that" In the states people hear it and think "I will not have anything to do with that guy and make sure noone else will"
In the states there are things you cannot say, can you walk into a bank and say everyone on the floor or I will shoot you?

Here the person spouting the hate manages to spread the hate because people object to what happens to them because of what they say - the hater becomes the victim and the victim becomes more hated. In the US the person spouting the hate becomes hated and villified and the victim becomes supported.
No what actually happens is if we allow abuse to go uncontrolled it becomes acceptable as it once was before. You cannot walk into any work place you are working at and call someone a black wanker, you would get sacked for racial discrimination, because rightly there are consequences for some things you say, because people cannot be responsible with free speech, hence why it is an illusion

Yes lines need to be drawn to prevent hate but trying to draw them in the language is the wrong place.
They are drawn as we see what Free speech can do when used for bad reasons, it can lead to a nation committing the most unspeakable acts to their fellow humans

We can and do legislate about violence. We can stop actions - we cannot and should not attempt to stop thought and feelings and that includes peoples right to express how they feel.

Thoughts and feelings are fine so is opinions, but directing verbal hate is a different kettle of fish when why should anyone have to suffer such abuse? Something you have not answered, why should they?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:27 pm

Warren Moon wrote:Sphinx you're a cold hearted bitch but that post was bloody brilliant!

Thank you.

I am not actually a cold hearted bitch - I just sometimes debate from a theoretical perspective.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:31 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No you dont get it.

Oh I get it you have no case here

Making abuse illegal gives it a power it otherwise would not have.
A power to dominate and control which can and does lead to?
Take your time

Read what Ben says - he lives where it is allowed and yet is far rarer because the fact that it is not illegal means people have to be responsible for what they say.
No he does not live where there is free speech as there is consequences on some speech, something you do not understand

Calling someone a name because of their whatever is not discriminating against - it is abuse.
It is both, so you are telling me calling someone a black wanker is not discriminating against that person by mentioning the colour of his skin?

Here because of the law people do no hear the abuse - they simply think "that guys in trouble he could get sent down for that" In the states people hear it and think "I will not have anything to do with that guy and make sure noone else will"
In the states there are things you cannot say, can you walk into a bank and say everyone on the floor or I will shoot you?

Here the person spouting the hate manages to spread the hate because people object to what happens to them because of what they say - the hater becomes the victim and the victim becomes more hated. In the US the person spouting the hate becomes hated and villified and the victim becomes supported.
No what actually happens is if we allow abuse to go uncontrolled it becomes acceptable as it once was before. You cannot walk into any work place you are working at and call someone a black wanker, you would get sacked for racial discrimination, because rightly there are consequences for some things you say, because people cannot be responsible with free speech, hence why it is an illusion

Yes lines need to be drawn to prevent hate but trying to draw them in the language is the wrong place.
They are drawn as we see what Free speech can do when used for bad reasons, it can lead to a nation committing the most unspeakable acts to their fellow humans

We can and do legislate about violence. We can stop actions - we cannot and should not attempt to stop thought and feelings and that includes peoples right to express how they feel.

Thoughts and feelings are fine so is opinions, but directing verbal hate is a different kettle of fish when why should anyone have to suffer such abuse? Something you have not answered, why should they?

Because as you well know verbal hate cannot be defined except by the perception of those hearing which disregards the intention of the those speaking.

It is possible to express more hate contempt and disgust using "innocent" innocuous words dripping with vitriol while "hate" words can be used to express friendship love and affection.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:44 pm

sphinx wrote:Read what Ben says - he lives where it is allowed and yet is far rarer because the fact that it is not illegal means people have to be responsible for what they say.

Oh, I doubt that. I live there too, and we have huge abuses. Hell, the whole KKK is an abominable abuse. It's mainly because we have a written Constitution.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:46 pm

sphinx wrote:Calling someone a name because of their whatever is not discriminating against - it is abuse.

Can I use that next time shady calls me a liberal slime?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:Read what Ben says - he lives where it is allowed and yet is far rarer because the fact that it is not illegal means people have to be responsible for what they say.

Oh, I doubt that. I live there too, and we have huge abuses. Hell, the whole KKK is an abominable abuse. It's mainly because we have a written Constitution.

Do you think if the KKK were banned it would change how people feel or would it just push them underground where their idea would not be open to the ridicule of the pubic arena?

by Sponsored content