What makes a country free?

[Phoenix Wright]

BTW In all my posts I tried to explain the logic of hate speech laws. They limit some small rights of some groups to allow other groups to not have some of their basic rights, which are much more important, threatened. What's so hard to understand?

The fact that for the most part, they're worthless. Those groups don't go away, the problem isn't solved, nothing changes. Except the shouting is taken down to a whisper. Big-friggin' deal.

They limit "some small rights of some"? Er, is this discussion not essentially about how astronomically important freedom of speech is when inquiring how free a nation is?

A xenophobe's words do nothing to inhibit the rights of those he is prejudiced against. If the man commits a crime against those he hates, then that is punishable under the law.

That's different. A murderer has a historic of criminal activities that makes him different from the normal person. The fact that he broke the laws of society deprives him of some of the benefits of a free society.

If someone has never broken the rules of society, then he has right of all rules that that society allows. If he has, he loses that rights. He losing the right to have guns is part of his punishment for a previous action he committed.

So a politician, for example, couldn't limit the speech of a neo-Nazi, then, right? Because neo-Nazis as a group aren't criminals. Your arguments are very inconsistent, from my perspective. It didn't sound like you wanted people to be able to say whatever they wanted at the beginning of this discussion.

So please help me by clarifying something up for me. Should a Democrat be able to say nearly whatever he wants, as long as his words don't harm people (i.e., shouting "fire" in a dimly lit, densely populated, closed area). Should a white nationalist be able to say whatever he wants, as long as his words don't harm people? Saying "I hate the Jews" doesn't actually harm a Jewish person, by the way.

If yes to both, then I agree with you. Both parties should be able to flap their gums to their heart's content. And I'd agree further, that if one of those parties tried to take the rights of another group, like barring blacks from marriage, then yes, I'd agree that as a nation, people should try to stop such a law from existing. Of course, that'd only be possible if enough of them got elected into Congress, and other even rarer circumstances, but that's besides the point.

Or, do you mean to say that the free speech that the white nationalists enjoy should be taken away because of their beliefs? This is where we disagree.

Not that I think that a free society should necessarily allow guns for a normal citizen.

Why not?

And not comprehending something don't mean being retarded or even dumb. That was putting words in his mouth.

And the lack of the ability to comprehend? Because that's what he said.

I mean, the concept of hate speech laws aren't similar in difficulty to those found in quantum physics, but what do I know I'm just an American.

Edit: goddamn am i rusty, or what? curse all of these math and science classes, making me forget how to write adequately enough for proper discussion. <_<

Edited August 13, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

Ive written that 10 times already, its not about the speech, they can say whatever they want. It's about physical violence or institucional prejudice, i.e. Some groups having less right according to law!

[Phoenix Wright]

You'll have to forgive my confusion, for only at the very top of this page did you start to state that. Before you were saying things like:

It's not necessarily the presence of the beliefs. You can't force someone to stop being racist or homophobic or hating jews. Those people shouldn't be able to make others hate those groups as well, though, because everyone should be equal according to law and in the eyes of the state. If those beliefs are widespread they encourages people to hate on others, sometimes significantly limiting their rights. see nazi-germany or apartheid-south africa.

I believe that if people are allowed to defend whatever they want with the exception of those things, it's still a "free state".

Yes, you have a point. When I said defend, I wasn't exactly thinking of only saying then, but defending then in a position that might influence others. A politician or someone with an important and influential job wouldn't be allowed to publicly say those things, putting their jobs at risks, but you obviously can't arrest a stupid teenager/ uneducated adult for saying those things.

So you think a country that forbids nazi parties is not free? Then I don't live in a free country and couldn't care less.

IMO if a party targets a group of people for something that this group can't choose being (jewish/black/gay/from other country/...) it shouldn't be allowed. I mean, those people being different isn't hurting anyone nor is changing anyone else's life, why does it matter for the society whatever they are?

Those are things they choose to be, though. And I was not talking about exclusively ethnic origin, that was just an example. I actually don't understand why you are comparing something that someone can't choose to be and that doesn't affect other people to criminals. And yes, if yankee fans or abortionists were suffering risk of being beaten in the street or being treated as sub citizens I'd feel the same way.

And those people I'm talking about feel that their opinions is more worthy than that of the groups they hate. The difference is that I don't think those people should be treated as sub citizens or segregated from society. What I think is that they shouldn't be allowed to do that to others.

I don't understand what you two are trying to say. Do you think that groups like neo-nazis should be allowed to exist? That if for some reason some country went crazy and one of those parties won the election, they should be allowed to take power? And then end freedon of speech for everyone in the country?

Which sounds a lot to me like you'd rather silence them completely or stop them from ever gaining traction politically by silencing their speech in fear that it might bring about widespread agreement with them amongst a population. Forcing silence is certainly inhibiting free speech.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

I ve also said that a person with power is different from a normal citizen. You can read from my post that i belive neo nazi parties shouldnt be alloed to take power because their existence revolves around limiting others rights. They can say what they want outside of politics, because when they enter politics theyre trying to limit others rights, which IS a crime.

[Esau of Isaac]

That's different. A murderer has a historic of criminal activities that makes him different from the normal person. The fact that he broke the laws of society deprives him of some of the benefits of a free society.

You just said "all groups." Now you are saying "all groups, except groups which have done bad things." You are missing the point, which is that these groups' rights are abridged because of their perceived harm to society. What you deem a harmful group and what others deem harmful groups can easily be different.

If one group, when elected to government tries to restrict the rights of others groups that haven't broken laws, they should be stopped on a free society, regardless of which group it is.

...You realize that there are countries which have illegalized homosexuality right? An argument resting its morals solely on legality is doomed to contradict itself given the slightest of time.

And not comprehending something don't mean being retarded or even dumb. That was putting words in his mouth.

It's as ridiculously offensive.

BTW In all my posts I tried to explain the logic of hate speech laws. They limit some small rights of some groups to allow other groups to not have some of their basic rights violated, which is much more important, threatened. What's so hard to understand?

Nothing. Nothing of what you are saying is difficult to understand. I am saying that I take issue with the abridging of the right of a man to speak his mind.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Why not?

Oh god

I ve also said that a person with power is different from a normal citizen. You can read from my post that i belive neo nazi parties shouldnt be alloed to take power because their existence revolves around limiting others rights. They can say what they want outside of politics, because when they enter politics theyre trying to limit others rights, which IS a crime.

No faith in the democratic system eh? Surely the vast majority of people are smart enough to know what a neo-nazi stands for, and wouldn't vote for them. But on the off-chance that one does get elected, what is one neo-nazi representative going to accomplish against 400 others?

And if a neo-nazi party is able to get a majority established, as PW said before, that speaks far more about the population and their desires than the politician itself.

[Zkirsche]

A xenophobe's words do nothing to inhibit the rights of those he is prejudiced against.

Words can induce fear though and that fear can inhibit ones rights.

And if a neo-nazi party is able to get a majority established, as PW said before, that speaks far more about the population and their desires than the politician itself.

Would you call such a country free though?

[Rehab]

Neonazism is synonymous with the glorification of genocide and unrepentant war crimes on the grandest of scales. It advocates literally nothing but violent, racist, homophobic hatred. Giving their beliefs the same benefits of the doubt as the people they tried to destroy is beyond short-sighted, and saying that suppressing their ideology is even remotely comparable to institutionalized discrimination against historically screwed-over people (for nothing more than existing as they were born) is self-evidently ludicrous. They're a little less than totally free to speak as they like, but giving them that freedom is to trade it for the potential well-being of people who aren't so used to freedom simply from being treated like literal animals.

Neonazism is designed to make other people less free in very tangible terms. The Devil's Advocate thing has gone past good taste at this point.

Similarly, hate-speech laws weren't born in a vacuum, they were fuck, does this really have to be what this topic is about? born of attempts to curb extremely pervasive de jure racism that made it hard for people to simply live their lives unmolested, much less claim an equal stake in modern society. Most of the people they protect still aren't, in aggregate, even close to equal in real terms. They are much more socially "free" than a hundred years ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have all the same social or economic options as everybody else. Hate-speech restrictions are a part of what gave these people what freedom they have today.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

Words can induce fear though and that fear can inhibit ones rights.

Well, tough. If said words are not cause for exception (imminent violence, incitement, etc), they can say what they want.

Would you call such a country free though?

Probably not, but given that neo-nazism would never be able to get enough influence to change shit in the US, let alone enact their ways, it's not really an issue. Letting them voice their [fucked up] beliefs doesn't mean we have to listen to them.

@Rehab, where do you draw the line, then? Should we just flat out silence the modern KKK from speaking their beliefs? What about extreme-conservatives in regard to homosexuals? Should we just ban all confederate flags because they advocate slavery? Picking and choosing who can and can't have the same speech rights as everyone else isn't a good idea.

You know the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? I'd say that applies here.

[Rehab]

I guess my position is ultimately that it's case-sensitive, but there really are some distinctions that deserve to be made. I'm kinda rushed for time a this very moment but anyway

Homophobic conservative politicians, despite xenophobic elements in their flock, a dearth of scientific evidence to back up their points, and their overall toxic influence on national influence, at least don't openly advocate or fetishize the extermination or exile of queer people.

The ACLU can sod off with regards to the KKK, as far as I'm concerned. The Klan has an open, proud history of what amounts to terrorism. Obstructing the practice of equal voting rights and stringing people up for kicks (or forcing them to live in fear of it), yeah like hell they deserve to field a political candidate

[I.M. Gei]

Neonazism is synonymous with the glorification of genocide and unrepentant war crimes on the grandest of scales. It advocates literally nothing but violent, racist, homophobic hatred. Giving their beliefs the same benefits of the doubt as the people they tried to destroy is beyond short-sighted, and saying that suppressing their ideology is even remotely comparable to institutionalized discrimination against historically screwed-over people (for nothing more than existing as they were born) is self-evidently ludicrous. They're a little less than totally free to speak as they like, but giving them that freedom is to trade it for the potential well-being of people who aren't so used to freedom simply from being treated like literal animals.

Neonazism is designed to make other people less free in very tangible terms. The Devil's Advocate thing has gone past good taste at this point.

Similarly, hate-speech laws weren't born in a vacuum, they were fuck, does this really have to be what this topic is about? born of attempts to curb extremely pervasive de jure racism that made it hard for people to simply live their lives unmolested, much less claim an equal stake in modern society. Most of the people they protect still aren't, in aggregate, even close to equal in real terms. They are much more socially "free" than a hundred years ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have all the same social or economic options as everybody else. Hate-speech restrictions are a part of what gave these people what freedom they have today.

It's the same kind of horrible internet libertarianism that agrees with Ron Paul saying things like "The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society"

See, they're not black or minorities of any kind so they cannot imagine why big bad gubbmint would trample on their right to whatever just to protect someone else.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Soran Ibrahim

[Esau of Isaac]

Words can induce fear though and that fear can inhibit ones rights.

Words can do any manner of things but the fact of the matter is that banning words is akin to banning bullets: It's not going to make the bad people go away.

Neonazism is synonymous with the glorification of genocide and unrepentant war crimes on the grandest of scales. It advocates literally nothing but violent, racist, homophobic hatred. Giving their beliefs the same benefits of the doubt as the people they tried to destroy is beyond short-sighted, and saying that suppressing their ideology is even remotely comparable to institutionalized discrimination against historically screwed-over people (for nothing more than existing as they were born) is self-evidently ludicrous. They're a little less than totally free to speak as they like, but giving them that freedom is to trade it for the potential well-being of people who aren't so used to freedom simply from being treated like literal animals.

They have committed no crimes, they only have vile beliefs. I listen to many men of power say ludicrously hateful and disgusting things every day. Yesterday I endured a co-worker insisting a friend of mine should have died instead of accepting Obamacare.

I obviously don't sympathize with the actions of the Nazi party. But everyone should be allowed a voice however sickening.

Homophobic conservative politicians, despite xenophobic elements in their flock, a dearth of scientific evidence to back up their points, and their overall toxic influence on national influence, at least don't openly advocate or fetishize the extermination or exile of queer people.

I mean, they don't try to enact any laws to do so, if that's what you're saying.

It's the same kind of horrible internet libertarianism that agrees with Ron Paul saying things like "The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society"

Enforcing the rights of men and women is not equivalent to taking the rights of others away. By advocating everyone be allowed to speak I am not condemning the actions of government past.

See, they're not black or minorities of any kind so they cannot imagine why big bad gubbmint would trample on their right to whatever just to protect someone else.

Yeah man I'm a white guy so I was literally handed the planet when I came out of the womb. I remember growing up on the plantation with many slaves, driving to school in my Lamborghini powered by the tears of dead Mexican babies. Then the government came along and told me I wasn't allowed to kill people of color anymore, what fascists.

If only I were a different race then my brain would be able to understand. Too bad I'm just not equipped to decode this information. First I'm just not smart enough because I'm American, now it's because of the color of my skin. Soon I'll know true pain when I don't understand because my income level is too high or low. Life is pain. :*(

[Nobody]

Yeah man I'm a white guy so I was literally handed the planet when I came out of the womb. I remember growing up on the plantation with many slaves, driving to school in my Lamborghini powered by the tears of dead Mexican babies. Then the government came along and told me I wasn't allowed to kill people of color anymore, what fascists.

If only I were a different race then my brain would be able to understand. Too bad I'm just not equipped to decode this information. First I'm just not smart enough because I'm American, now it's because of the color of my skin. Soon I'll know true pain when I don't understand because my income level is too high or low. Life is pain. :*(

He isn't saying you're guilt for that things, he's saying that since you've never suffered from them, it's harder for you to have empathy. I, myself, am a white straight male from upper middle class, so I've never suffered any kind of prejudice. I'm still able to sympathize with them because I imagine it must be terrible to suffer prejudice, to know that it doesn't matter what you do, you will still be considered worse.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Constable Reggie]

He isn't saying you're guilt for that things, he's saying that since you've never suffered from them, it's harder for you to have empathy. I, myself, am a white straight male from upper middle class, so I've never suffered any kind of prejudice. I'm still able to sympathize with them because I imagine it must be terrible to suffer prejudice, to know that it doesn't matter what you do, you will still be considered worse.

By who? Racist idiots who aren't backed by anyone other than other racist idiots? People who we, in this age, view as pathetic, misguided, awful people?

Being hated by extremists/neonazis/whatever is only an issue if you make it an issue. Now, being racially targeted/profiled by your own state is a huge issue that shouldn't be ignored, but I don't see anyone here advocating that law enforcement/democratic/republican state officials shouldn't be allowed to speak ever.

The ACLU can sod off with regards to the KKK, as far as I'm concerned. The Klan has an open, proud history of what amounts to terrorism. Obstructing the practice of equal voting rights and stringing people up for kicks (or forcing them to live in fear of it), yeah like hell they deserve to field a political candidate

By that logic, no southern nation should be allowed to have speech rights or political candidates, given that they did the same thing in the past.

KKK members may still advocate doing that stuff, and try to get it legalized, but who the fuck is going to be on their side in this day and age?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

It's the same kind of horrible internet libertarianism that agrees with Ron Paul saying things like "The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society"

See, they're not black or minorities of any kind so they cannot imagine why big bad gubbmint would trample on their right to whatever just to protect someone else.

top-notch job at being a troll. you had me going there for a sec, man.

Words can induce fear though and that fear can inhibit ones rights.

Would you call such a country free though?

Might as well stop before shit goes insane and just ban words then. Seems like the best course of action.

Absolutely not. The minorities that live in that country would most certainly not be given any rights.

But that's what freedom's all about, man. We take those risks. The road less traveled and what have you.

[Esau of Isaac]

He isn't saying you're guilt for that things, he's saying that since you've never suffered from them, it's harder for you to have empathy. I, myself, am a white straight male from upper middle class, so I've never suffered any kind of prejudice. I'm still able to sympathize with them because I imagine it must be terrible to suffer prejudice, to know that it doesn't matter what you do, you will still be considered worse.

I don't have to have been shot to have empathy for gunshot victims. If I've any strong suit in communications it's the capability to empathize with others. If I were black it would not give me any innately greater ability to empathize with the plight of others. The color of one's skin has no bearing on their mental functions, that should be obvious to the very person that is arguing against racial discrimination.

[Nobody]

I don't have to have been shot to have empathy for gunshot victims. If I've any strong suit in communications it's the capability to empathize with others. If I were black it would not give me any innately greater ability to empathize with the plight of others. The color of one's skin has no bearing on their mental functions, that should be obvious to the very person that is arguing against racial discrimination.

Have you even read my post? That's exactly what I said, since I have empathy for those people even though I'm not one of them. What I said is that it's easier to feel empathy for a situation that you have lived than for one you haven't. Are you going to deny that? I'm not talking about "mental functions" or whatever.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Constable Reggie]

I don't have to have been shot to have empathy for gunshot victims. If I've any strong suit in communications it's the capability to empathize with others. If I were black it would not give me any innately greater ability to empathize with the plight of others. The color of one's skin has no bearing on their mental functions, that should be obvious to the very person that is arguing against racial discrimination.

Are you saying that you don't have to be dead in order to emphathize with a murder victim? Well golly

Have you even read my post? That's exactly what I said, since I have empathy for those people even though I'm not one of them. What I said is that it's easier to feel empathy for a situation that you have lived than for one you haven't. Are you going to deny that? I'm not talking about "mental functions" or whatever.

Given that both of you are roughly the same demographic, what makes you think that you're more qualified/he's less qualified to feel empathy for others? Why even bother bringing it up if all you're going to say about it is that you're special when it comes to empathy? Do you think other people also can't imagine what it must be like to encounter racism?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Nobody]

Given that both of you are roughly the same demographic, what makes you think that you're more qualified/he's less qualified to feel empathy for others? Because you're special?

I'm not saying I am more qualified to feel more empathy for others. What I'm saying is that people who haven't going through one of those situations are most likely to downplay then. I, despite not going through any of them, don't downplay them. I don't know him, so I don't know if he's a sympathetic person or not, but by his posts, it seems that he don't think suffering verbal prejudice is something especially bad. That's what I'm talking about. He's probably more empathetic than me in many other aspects, I'm not judging him or anything.

The reason why I feel verbal prejudice is worse than him is probably a cultural one. I was raised on a culture where saying racist comments is strictly prohibited and can get you to jail. It's basically the reason this big discussion is happening in first place, so I'm done here.

Are you saying that you don't have to be dead in order to emphathize with a murder victim? Well golly

You don't have to be dead to empathize with a murder victims, but you are much more likely to (and will probably empathize even more) if one of your relatives/ close friends was one. See?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Constable Reggie]

I'm not saying I am more qualified to feel more empathy for others. What I'm saying is that people who haven't going through one of those situations are most likely to downplay then. I, despite not going through any of then, don't downplay then. I don't know him, so I don't know if he's a sympathetic person or not, but by his posts, it seems that he don't think suffering verbal prejudice is something especially bad. That's what I'm talking about. He's probably more empathetic than me in many other aspects, I'm not judging him or anything.

Who's to say you might be overplaying them? Direct threats with intent to carry it out/cause fear and the like are illegal for obvious reasons, but how does saying "my political belief is that Jews are a plague to this nation" (legitimately) hurt someone?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Have you even read my post? That's exactly what I said, since I have empathy for those people even though I'm not one of them. What I said is that it's easier to feel empathy for a situation that you have lived than for one you haven't. Are you going to deny that? I'm not talking about "mental functions" or whatever.

He said I cannot imagine the pain of others because I am not black or a minority. Being black or a minority does not inherently make you more sensitive to anything.

I'm not saying I am more qualified to feel more empathy for others. What I'm saying is that people who haven't going through one of those situations are most likely to downplay then. I, despite not going through any of then, don't downplay then. I don't know him, so I don't know if he's a sympathetic person or not, but by his posts, it seems that he don't think suffering verbal prejudice is something especially bad. That's what I'm talking about. He's probably more empathetic than me in many other aspects, I'm not judging him or anything.

First, empathy and sympathy are not one and the same. They can be used in tandem, but empathizing does not mean you sympathize. Secondly, the fact that I wish for people to be allowed to say what is on their mind doesn't mean that I don't disagree with racists. Don't you find it odd to on one hand say you are not judging me and then in the same breath judge me?

[Nobody]

He said I cannot imagine the pain of others because I am not black or a minority. Being black or a minority does not inherently make you more sensitive to anything.

First, empathy and sympathy are not one and the same. They can be used in tandem, but empathizing does not mean you sympathize. Secondly, the fact that I wish for people to be allowed to say what is on their mind doesn't mean that I don't disagree with racists. Don't you find it odd to on one hand say you are not judging me and then in the same breath judge me?

I never called you a racist or anything like that. I actually understand your point, but I disagree.

[Rehab]

They have committed no crimes, they only have vile beliefs. I listen to many men of power say ludicrously hateful and disgusting things every day. Yesterday I endured a co-worker insisting a friend of mine should have died instead of accepting Obamacare.

..

We're talking about nazis, right?

[dondon151]

a neo-nazi isn't a criminal if he hasn't committed any crimes

[Esau of Isaac]

..

We're talking about nazis, right?

What crimes has a proponent of Nazism necessarily committed outside of those against hate speech that are being argued against?