Free speech and its limits

[Skynstein]

Well the poster is supposed to depict Apocalypse as a terrifying villain. What would be more terrifying than him strangling a character we're supposed to be sympathetic towards?

Besides, if women want equality in comics, they should be expected to take a beating in the story from time to time, the same way male heroes do.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Cerberus87

[eclipse]

SF is a private entity. Its owners can decide to ban anyone for whatever reason. Free speech only refers to the State, so your comparison doesn't really work. SF can't arrest you, fine you or charge you with a crime for breaking its rules. It can only ban you from its "property". Being in this "property" isn't a right, but rather a privilegy, therefore a person banned from it isn't having their freedom of speech limited.

My comparison is to free speech and its consequences. It holds.

Statistically, men are just as likely to be abused by their female partners as vice versa. Women are just seen as the weaker sex, so people think we need special treatment.

I think you should know me well enough to predict the next part:

SOURCE THIS.

Although limiting one's speech because it's your private property and you can be an ass does not save you from being labeled an asshole. I've seen people do it a lot and I've turned the tables on them while they thought they were justified to do whatever they wanted with no reprovation backlash. See, words can be really useful.

So that's why you're always lynched in mafia

Well the poster is supposed to depict Apocalypse as a terrifying villain. What would be more terrifying than him strangling a character we're supposed to be sympathetic towards?

Besides, if women want equality in comics, they should be expected to take a beating in the story from time to time, the same way male heroes do.

I have issues with that movie, but the poster has nothing to do with it.

Though having the hurt go 'round equally is something I support. . .only in the comic book world.

[Rezzy]

I think you should know me well enough to predict the next part:

SOURCE THIS.

A study done by the USA's CDC in 2010, published in 2011. The pertinent numbers are from Section 4: Violence by an Intimate Partner.https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Numbers from the "Last 12 months" category are generally considered the most accurate. Taken from tables 4.5-4.10.

Slapped pushed shoved: Female Victim: 4,322,000; Male Victim: 5,066,000

Any Severe Physical Violence: Female Victim: 3,163,000; Male Victim: 2,266,000

Any Psychological Aggression: Female Victim: 16,578,000; Male Victim: 20,548,000

Rape: Female Victim: 686,000; Male Victim: (It puts an asterisk by this category, due to contentious definition of rape, "Made to penetrate" # is 586,000)

Other Sexual Violence: Female Victim: 2,747,000; Male Victim: 2,793,000 (Including "Made to penetrate")

[eclipse]

A study done by the USA's CDC in 2010, published in 2011. The pertinent numbers are from Section 4: Violence by an Intimate Partner.https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Numbers from the "Last 12 months" category are generally considered the most accurate. Taken from tables 4.5-4.10.

Slapped pushed shoved: Female Victim: 4,322,000; Male Victim: 5,066,000

Any Severe Physical Violence: Female Victim: 3,163,000; Male Victim: 2,266,000

Any Psychological Aggression: Female Victim: 16,578,000; Male Victim: 20,548,000

Rape: Female Victim: 686,000; Male Victim: (It puts an asterisk by this category, due to contentious definition of rape, "Made to penetrate" # is 586,000)

Other Sexual Violence: Female Victim: 2,747,000; Male Victim: 2,793,000 (Including "Made to penetrate")

Hey, a study that cites numbers, sources, and calculations~! Thanks~!

Now, for the actual breakdown:

- In the slapped/pushed/shoved category, men reported far more slapping than women, while pushing/shoving was about equal

- The psychological numbers don't surprise me

- The sexual violence one is a whole 'nother beast, but that's not the point of this list, because. . .

. . .under the "any severe violence" listing (tables 4.7 and 4.8), there's far more female victims than male victims. I believe a certain X-Men movie poster was brought up, where a certain villain whose gender is assumed to be male is holding a certain not-favorite-of-mine female character by the neck. The number of women who reported attempted choking/suffocation in the past 12 months? 1,121,000. The number of men? Not enough to make an estimate.

So, if they wanted to make an equally offensive male equivalent, Apocalypse would be shown bitch-slapping one of the male heroes.

EDIT: In other words, that was poor taste on the guys who called the shots behind the poster, BUT I don't think it should be censored.

Edited June 6, 2016 by eclipse

[Tryhard]

unfortunately it's hard to properly estimate anything with domestic violence to begin with but that still relies on the assumption that we should equate violence from a supervillain against a blue scale-skinned shapeshifter who aren't in a relationship to real life domestic violence

and assuming that anyone is going to be naturally influenced by this, which ain't happening, and even if it was happening it wouldn't be taken as a serious excuse. more like this person should have been locked up already because they can't distinguish reality from fiction

unless all women have a secret layer of blue scales underneath their skin and can shapeshift at will and I've just missed the memo

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[eclipse]

unfortunately it's hard to properly estimate anything with domestic violence to begin with but that still relies on the assumption that we should equate violence from a supervillain against a blue scale-skinned shapeshifter who aren't in a relationship to real life domestic violence

and assuming that anyone is going to be naturally influenced by this, which ain't happening, and even if it was happening it wouldn't be taken as a serious excuse. more like this person should have been locked up already because they can't distinguish reality from fiction

unless all women have a secret layer of blue scales underneath their skin and can shapeshift at will and I've just missed the memo

Yes. Yes, you did miss the memo.

My previous post was to illustrate that there's some basis for the complaints, and it's not just random overreaction. However, I think I've made it clear enough that art in poor taste is simply poor taste, and not something that should be censored.

Still, it's a wonderful example of free speech in action - company makes movie poster, and opinions fly. Perhaps they lost some movie sales over that poster (possible consequence), perhaps not. No one's been arrested over it (as far as I know).

[Rezzy]

Hey, a study that cites numbers, sources, and calculations~! Thanks~!

So, if they wanted to make an equally offensive male equivalent, Apocalypse would be shown bitch-slapping one of the male heroes.

You're welcome, I like looking at the hard numbers on stuff before reaching a conclusion.

I in no way condone violence against woman, just Mystique. (I guess saying he's choking her until she's blue in the face would be in bad taste?)

I find hilarious the idea of Apocalypse going around bitch-slapping the X-Men.

It looks like choking is the third most common serious physically violent act on women after "Hit with fist or something hard" and "Slammed against something", the equivalent third most common for men looks to be "Slammed against something" after "Hit with fist or something hard" and "Kicked".

[Cornguy]

Freedom of speech is important. Everything you say has potential social repercussions, the government should not be allowed to mandate what we can and can't say. If we lost freedom of speech, whose to say when it would stop? Whose to say where it would stop? Would our text messages, phone calls and online interactions be under scrutiny?

No one should speak hate and discrimination, but we should not leave it up to big brother. We should be educating our children, family, friends, students, anyone, not to speak out of hate or discrimination.

The government has more control over our rights than they should already, the thought of handing over more of our rights to them, willingly, is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

Words can hurt, I'm not saying they can't. But the answer should not be the elimination of words, it should be the education and understanding not to hurt people with words. Sure, it'll take a lot longer, and require more work, but the easy way is seldom ever the right way.

Please excuse my wall of text.

[tuvarkz]

While I agree that death threats should be a penalized thing, I disagree on qualifying "Incitement to violence" unless it was a very specific set of conditions for something to qualify as such, because the term could easily be twisted and expanded beyond what "Incitement to violence" would be intended to target specifically. (And because it would make a speech in favor of declaring war on somewhere illegal.)

And regarding minorities and how apparently 'hate speech' can tangibly harm them, honestly I always end up finding that most cases end up being heavily misconstrued, the data specifically cherrypicked to be made an argument of, or outright lies; and the few that are tend to be heavily outlier cases. Yet I never see these groups actually trying to make something be done about other places in the world- outside of first world countries- (A big specific case being Saudi Arabia); where there's systematic abuse of certain groups for things they have no control over.

[blah the Prussian]

The fuck would you have done about Saudi Arabia? The entire affair is a massive quandary that there isn't a good answer for. If we cut off support for the Saudis, do you honestly think it will go well? ISIS, Al-Nusra,cor any other terrorist group might come to power in Saudi Arabia, which we can't risk. There's also the fact that Femenist groups can actually do stuff in western countries as opposed to Saudi Arabia.

[tuvarkz]

Honestly? Completely annihilate the royal family and supporters, (and as much as I find this idea horrible but necessary-because leaving a country alone in that area will inevitably lead to radical Islam takeover) setup a puppet government that won't be favoring barbaric laws nor funding ISIS; and that will keep reasonable pacts with the rest of the modern world.

Oh, feminist groups in the first world? Considering how feminism has almost become a religion at this point? (Given how anyone that will criticize third wave feminism's methods will inevitably end up called a mysoginist.) That most of the stuff it screams about is fake ("1 in 5" originally, now "1 in 3"-The actual statistic in 1 in 51 for sexual harassment, and that's a wide area of misconduct), comes from comparing apples to tomatoes (or whatever the english translation for the phrasing is)("Wage Gap"), or outright dumb? ("Internet harassment" when males treat each other just as similarly (so much for wanting equal treatment), "Reclaim the internet" when the internet only became a mainstream thing of recent, when it the military, scientists, and geeks of different sorts that were the primary users before then?)

EDIT: Oh, and intersectionality (I'm sorry, but being obese is a dangerous medical condition)

Edited June 6, 2016 by tuvarkz

[eclipse]

Honestly? Completely annihilate the royal family and supporters, (and as much as I find this idea horrible but necessary-because leaving a country alone in that area will inevitably lead to radical Islam takeover) setup a puppet government that won't be favoring barbaric laws nor funding ISIS; and that will keep reasonable pacts with the rest of the modern world.

Oh, feminist groups in the first world? Considering how feminism has almost become a religion at this point? (Given how anyone that will criticize third wave feminism's methods will inevitably end up called a mysoginist.) That most of the stuff it screams about is fake ("1 in 5" originally, now "1 in 3"-The actual statistic in 1 in 51 for sexual harassment, and that's a wide area of misconduct), comes from comparing apples to tomatoes (or whatever the english translation for the phrasing is)("Wage Gap"), or outright dumb? ("Internet harassment" when males treat each other just as similarly (so much for wanting equal treatment), "Reclaim the internet" when the internet only became a mainstream thing of recent, when it the military, scientists, and geeks of different sorts that were the primary users before then?)

EDIT: Oh, and intersectionality (I'm sorry, but being obese is a dangerous medical condition)

So, let's do a freedom of speech exercise here.

Yes, you're free to express this. However, YOU'RE IN THE WRONG TOPIC. If this is something that you feel warrants discussion, please make another topic about it, so I can have fun trying to keep things civil. Thanks.

[Phoenix Wright]

Honestly? Completely annihilate the royal family and supporters, (and as much as I find this idea horrible but necessary-because leaving a country alone in that area will inevitably lead to radical Islam takeover) setup a puppet government that won't be favoring barbaric laws nor funding ISIS; and that will keep reasonable pacts with the rest of the modern world.

i'm still unsure if you actually want people to take you seriously

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, so moving away from Saudi Arabia (shouldn't have brought that up) how can incitement to violence be twisted. Also, no, it wouldn't make a speech in favor of declaring war somewhere illegal, because that would be encouraging a government to take action against another government. Incitement to violence would be doing that and encouraging private citizens to attack a country. See the difference?

[tuvarkz]

i'm still unsure if you actually want people to take you seriously

I was being dead serious-and that's the last I'll say about my previous post.

Okay, so moving away from Saudi Arabia (shouldn't have brought that up) how can incitement to violence be twisted. Also, no, it wouldn't make a speech in favor of declaring war somewhere illegal, because that would be encouraging a government to take action against another government. Incitement to violence would be doing that and encouraging private citizens to attack a country. See the difference?

Because a speech against mass immigration or similar policies could be easily mis-interpreted (or willfully interpreted incorrectly) as inciting violence against X group (in this case, the migrants). Heck, any talks about protesting against the government, even pacifically, could be interpreted as such (Because almost always there's someone bound to try and turn it into a violent scenario, due to maliciousness or stupidity). But as I've said, if the law doesn't remain at "incitement to violence" but it specifically mentions in what cases it applies and in which cases it does not (To prevent such manipulation/misinterpretation scenarios); I'm all for it.

[blah the Prussian]

Yes, the law, generally speaking, is quite clear on what it means in these cases. When could it get problematic? Well, I'd say that the word "we" could be a weasel word here, because it could be used to be deliberately unclear as to if the government is meant or if the people are meant. So in that case, I'd say don't use the word "we". Also, advocating for the government to commit genocide, that should be banned. The details on if it was actually genocide or not could be worked out at the trial.

[Hyoudou Issei]

Also, advocating for the government to commit genocide, that should be banned. The details on if it was actually genocide or not could be worked out at the trial.

I'd disagree here, not because I agree with the concept of genocide, but I've always felt that was one major trade-off of free speech, was the responsibility of the people that comes with it. While it may be advocating it, no one is explicitly stating they will do it, meaning, while the idea is bigoted and stupid, the speech itself isn't illegal. The reason free speech exists is so that every idea and criticism can be heard. That said, I've always felt the most important part of the listener is to analyze what was said for themselves.

Can the speaker be arrested? No. But the people who have heard what they have said have a responsibility to react accordingly. If what the person has said is reacted to, this leads not only to destroyed reputation and controversy, but can damage their business/get them fired from their workplace, as well as get them banned from certain privately owned buildings.

Bear in mind, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences. Freedom of expression goes beyond speech, and should you have a dislike for something that has been said, then you have the right, and sometimes even the responsibility to make that known through your own expression.

[blah the Prussian]

I'd disagree here, not because I agree with the concept of genocide, but I've always felt that was one major trade-off of free speech, was the responsibility of the people that comes with it. While it may be advocating it, no one is explicitly stating they will do it, meaning, while the idea is bigoted and stupid, the speech itself isn't illegal. The reason free speech exists is so that every idea and criticism can be heard. That said, I've always felt the most important part of the listener is to analyze what was said for themselves.

Can the speaker be arrested? No. But the people who have heard what they have said have a responsibility to react accordingly. If what the person has said is reacted to, this leads not only to destroyed reputation and controversy, but can damage their business/get them fired from their workplace, as well as get them banned from certain privately owned buildings.

Bear in mind, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences. Freedom of expression goes beyond speech, and should you have a dislike for something that has been said, then you have the right, and sometimes even the responsibility to make that known through your own expression.

Well yes, but it doesn't have consequences that actually prevent genocide from being carried out. Scarily enough, Neo Nazis are an actual strong part of the Greek political scene, as are Communists. I don't claim that people like Trump advocate genocide, but the fact is that "well, they didn't live up to their responsibilities" is small comfort to people actually having genocide committed against them.

[Hyoudou Issei]

Well yes, but it doesn't have consequences that actually prevent genocide from being carried out. Scarily enough, Neo Nazis are an actual strong part of the Greek political scene, as are Communists. I don't claim that people like Trump advocate genocide, but the fact is that "well, they didn't live up to their responsibilities" is small comfort to people actually having genocide committed against them.

When it comes to the point where someone whose actually in the power to commit genocide advocates doing. I think that goes less into a local free speech law, and more into UN intervention areas. Bearing in mind, most societies with governments that have the power to commit genocide, are also really societies where any citizen who dares to exercise free speech against it likely goes missing or mysteriously ends up dead within a matter of days. If any government has access to genocide within it's power, the real problem there is just how much power does that government have and the frightening thing they can use it for

[blah the Prussian]

When it comes to the point where someone whose actually in the power to commit genocide advocates doing. I think that goes less into a local free speech law, and more into UN intervention areas. Bearing in mind, most societies with governments that have the power to commit genocide, are also really societies where any citizen who dares to exercise free speech against it likely goes missing or mysteriously ends up dead within a matter of days. If any government has access to genocide within it's power, the real problem there is just how much power does that government have and the frightening thing they can use it for

You misunderstand; I'm talking about someone running on a platform of genocide getting elected, and becoming the government AFTER and BECAUSE OF advocating for genocide. This has happened before, in Wiemar Germany, in the US with the Indian Wars, and as happened in Rwanda.