Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blah the Prussian

So what is freedom?

Recommended Posts

The economy will fail. You can only take people in at a controlled pace so the economic infrastructure can keep up.

But what were you saying about ethics? These are serious considerations to make.

Fallacy fallacy. Just because it's fallacy, doesn't it mean it doesn't have a point. It certainly could be taken to it's logical extreme and from I can see, there is nothing to stop it from being taken to it's logical extreme.

I have been telling you multiple times, laws on what specifically counts as hate speech prevent it from being taken to its logical extreme.

Except it doesn't remove the risk of fascism taking over. Nazisim is a crime in Germany, but you still have fascist parties on the rise.

No you don't. The current fascist party is miniscule.

I can't say it quite as well as the author of this blog says it, so I'll just quote it (I suggest you read it too. I can't word as well has he does //tears):

"In a sense, hate speech restriction has become a means not of addressing specific issues about intimidation or incitement, but of enforcing general social regulation. This is why if you look at hate speech laws across the world, there is no consistency about what constitutes hate speech. Britain bans abusive, insulting, and threatening speech. Denmark and Canada ban speech that is insulting and degrading. India and Israel ban speech that hurts religious feelings and incites racial and religious hatred. In Holland, it is a criminal offense deliberately to insult a particular group. Australia prohibits speech that offends, insults, humiliates, or intimidates individuals or groups. Germany bans speech that violates the dignity of, or maliciously degrades or defames, a group. And so on. In each case, the law defines hate speech in a different way.

One response might be to say: Let us define hate speech much more tightly. I think, however, that the problem runs much deeper. Hate speech restriction is a means not of tackling bigotry but of rebranding certain, often obnoxious, ideas or arguments as immoral. It is a way of making certain ideas illegitimate without bothering politically to challenge them. And that is dangerous." - https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-hate-speech-should-not-be-banned/

That is a good point. I agree with the first paragraph. With the second one, though, why can't you do both? Why can't you politically challenge them and ban them at the same time?

None, in Germany anyway. But it breaks laws if it was in America, because of the first amendment of the US constitution. Is this a problem? I think so.

So how does it violate the US constitution? How does simply publishing this list violate the constitution? The First Amendment says that the government can't do anything against freedom of speech (something I think should be amended) but it doesn't say anything about private individuals or companies.

Even if you do lose, like if you're a moron, then someone else will take up the plate.

This doesn't answer the question. Far right parties were able to win in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Hungary is even demanding Transylvania back, which it hasn't had since WWI. The ones who debate them don't always win, and there needs to be a failsafe for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what were you saying about ethics? These are serious considerations to make.

The ethics of making sure you economy can support your citizens to live at a high HDI standard? Illegal immigrants are illegal for a reason.

I have been telling you multiple times, laws on what specifically counts as hate speech prevent it from being taken to its logical extreme.

Which, I'm sure has been working well for anti-terrorism. Saying that "“you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” would be quoting Joseph Goebbles.

No you don't. The current fascist party is miniscule.

You can say that for the other countries without anti fascism rules. Making those rules irrelevant.

That is a good point. I agree with the first paragraph. With the second one, though, why can't you do both? Why can't you politically challenge them and ban them at the same time?

That's not a challenge. That's a one sided bashing. If your idea is a good one, then you don't to silence people to make yourself heard.

So how does it violate the US constitution? How does simply publishing this list violate the constitution? The First Amendment says that the government can't do anything against freedom of speech (something I think should be amended) but it doesn't say anything about private individuals or companies.

Okay fine. But it is still an organised media, public outlet inciting hatred against individuals. Something the first amendment was designed to avoid. I don't know why you think this is okay, when you don't think mere hatespeech isn't okay.

The freedom of speech I support means that *everyone* is protected from political consequence. That means mean spirited hateful people, as well as people who would argue against it. If your ideas are good then you should be able to defend it in the open marketplace of ideas. If it isn't good, then I don't see why the opposing opinons should not, in fact, be enshrined in law.

This doesn't answer the question. Far right parties were able to win in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Hungary is even demanding Transylvania back, which it hasn't had since WWI. The ones who debate them don't always win, and there needs to be a failsafe for that.

A fail-safe against the populace's majority opinion in a democracy in an open marketplace of ideas. Alrighty. I'm sure you are perfectly qualified to speak on behalf of what is objectively good for a nation, so much so, that you think physical violence should be used to make people bow to you opinion on the basis of 'safeguarding' them from their own will.

Edited by Autumn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blah, I am curious what sorts of speech you would prefer the government control. If the answer is hate speech, what is hate speech specifically and what comments would be grounds for state intervention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blah, I am curious what sorts of speech you would prefer the government control. If the answer is hate speech, what is hate speech specifically and what comments would be grounds for state intervention?

Good question. i define hate speech as any speech calling for violence against a specific racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious group. Additionally, any parties with the platform of abolishing democracy should also be banned. In my mind, the most important jb the state has is protecting the people, and the safety of the people is more important than freedom of speech.

The ethics of making sure you economy can support your citizens to live at a high HDI standard? Illegal immigrants are illegal for a reason.

I'll concede this point. UKIP are still shitheads, though.

Which, I'm sure has been working well for anti-terrorism. Saying that "“you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” would be quoting Joseph Goebbles.

What is the relevance of this?

You can say that for the other countries without anti fascism rules. Making those rules irrelevant.

Golden Dawn is popular in Greece. Orban in Hungary won his election. Weren't you the one who posted the article about how Fascism is on the rise in Europe?

That's not a challenge. That's a one sided bashing. If your idea is a good one, then you don't to silence people to make yourself heard.

All you do is present the arguments against whatever is being censored. Then you don't even risk the ideas winning. Or are you saying you want Fascism to have a chance?

Okay fine. But it is still an organised media, public outlet inciting hatred against individuals. Something the first amendment was designed to avoid. I don't know why you think this is okay, when you don't think mere hatespeech isn't okay.

The freedom of speech I support means that *everyone* is protected from political consequence. That means mean spirited hateful people, as well as people who would argue against it. If your ideas are good then you should be able to defend it in the open marketplace of ideas. If it isn't good, then I don't see why the opposing opinons should not, in fact, be enshrined in law.

Its not inciting hatred against them. If it was saying "here is a list of people, go beat them up", they should be shut down, but they aren't. Also, I think that a good test to see if an idea is good is "is it hate speech".

A fail-safe against the populace's majority opinion in a democracy in an open marketplace of ideas. Alrighty. I'm sure you are perfectly qualified to speak on behalf of what is objectively good for a nation, so much so, that you think physical violence should be used to make people bow to you opinion on the basis of 'safeguarding' them from their own will.

Might as well get this out here now. Democracy itself is a necessary evil to give the people a tool to protect themselves from the government by voting an oppressive government out of office. If, however, democracy is used against human rights, for example the section of the Nazis, it has no right to exist. The people do need safeguarding from their own will. If you see someone committing suicide, do you let them do it, because it is their will? Of course not. This is merely taking that principle and applying it to a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speech that incites violence is indeed restricted in the United States, although maybe not to the same extent as you'd prefer.

To what extent? Whatever the case, a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To what extent? Whatever the case, a good start.

I'm not qualified to give much of an answer, but the Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point. If you get a chance to look it over I'd be interested to hear where you think US speech law gets it right and where it doesn't go far enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not qualified to give much of an answer, but the Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point. If you get a chance to look it over I'd be interested to hear where you think US speech law gets it right and where it doesn't go far enough.

I think the law gets it right pretty much everywhere, except in regards to hate speech. The Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK, for example, should be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough one. The problem with legislating hate speech is where to draw the line. Racist and homophobic remarks are easy pickings, but what about:

* a Muslim who says gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

* a group of rabid pro-lifers carrying signs that say abortion is murder?

* an atheist giving a speech about how raising children in a particular religion is child abuse?

* "mild" hate speech? (eg. "I'm not sexist, but I think women are slightly less intelligent than men...")

As soon as a government starts criminalizing hate speech, a precedent is set that opens the door for farther-reaching restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough one. The problem with legislating hate speech is where to draw the line. Racist and homophobic remarks are easy pickings, but what about:

* a Muslim who says gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

* a group of rabid pro-lifers carrying signs that say abortion is murder?

* an atheist giving a speech about how raising children in a particular religion is child abuse?

* "mild" hate speech? (eg. "I'm not sexist, but I think women are slightly less intelligent than men...")

As soon as a government starts criminalizing hate speech, a precedent is set that opens the door for farther-reaching restrictions.

I disagree that the inability of drawing the line is a valid reason for not legislating about hate speech. Maybe it is not possible to know if it is hate speech in some "mild" cases, but it is surely visible in the extremes. We may not be able to draw a line but we are able to recognize the extremes when we see it. I don't know if your examples are hate speech, but someone claiming for persecution against a group is, and I believe this is quite enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the issue: who is "we"? Informed, reasonable members of the public may be able to separate the extremes from grey area cases, but what about politicians representing the less informed masses and special interests?

The question is whether you trust the government to wield this power responsibly. I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the examples you've given are examples of hate speech under blah's definition, as none incite violence. They should be allowed.

I would also say that expressing such opinions is fine, despite the fact I disagree.

However, rather than violence, I'd say that speech that advocates for open discrimination ("don't employ X ethnic minority because they're not our race", "X group of individuals are scum and deserve to be treated as such") is where the line should be drawn. Negative opinions about such groups shouldn't be outlawed, only the actions connected towards them and speech that advocates for those actions.

Edited by Irysa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the issue: who is "we"? Informed, reasonable members of the public may be able to separate the extremes from grey area cases, but what about politicians representing the less informed masses and special interests?

The question is whether you trust the government to wield this power responsibly. I do not.

If you don't trust e government, then tell me, why do you trust the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the issue: who is "we"? Informed, reasonable members of the public may be able to separate the extremes from grey area cases, but what about politicians representing the less informed masses and special interests?

The question is whether you trust the government to wield this power responsibly. I do not.

Even if there are politicians with special interests who may try to use this to censor opinions they do not see favorable to their own views, in the end it is open for the judiciary to judge. Ok, in the end judges need to follow the law and the will of the legislator, but there are ways to circunvent them through jurisdiction. Especially if they verse about subjective things, which will be up to the judge's interpretation in such cases.

Also, a strict definition may be the solution. Every law that is left vague will be used as a weapon to fulfill one's interests, but if we can think of a definition that applies to cases that are obviously hate speech (let's think of the extremes and leave the "mild" hate speech parts alone, at least for now), there will be little room for abuse.

If you don't trust e government, then tell me, why do you trust the people?

It's funny how we can invert [government] and [people] and the argument still applies well. One that trusts people has to trust the government because it is made of people, but one who trusts the government also has to trust people because it is made of them.

The way I think, we can't completely trust people or the "government". Some things are just better delegated to the government or left open for citizens to act freely. I prefer to keep the scale tipped to the side of citizens, however, since the State has the monopoly of coercion to make our lives hell if we delegate too many functions to it. I'm used to think in the following way: Does the State need to have a word on x matter? And if yes, can't the problem be solved more efficiently by private hands (which usually is the case, as I've noticed)?

Edited by Rapier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...