RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches

RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 9:42:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We have found it useful to place certain limits on free speech in order to maintain social harmony. Even more useful is to put everyone in a straitjacket on parenteral nutrition in an artificial coma, except maintenance personell that are prohibited from speaking to each other. It completely eliminates any traces of social disharmony, and solves the problem of population excesses very effectively in the process. Less radically, one can take away all stimuli and all input that could provoke emotion or even thought. This will probably be almost as useful, though one can't quite guarantee it, of course. Incidentally, we have similar laws here in Norway, and even more stringent filtration processes in society and the media. As a result, we got 22/7, and a number of people looking to prepare for a repeat performance. Most cite as their main reason a single thing: the time for talk is over when you're not allowed to talk anymore. I have no counterargument to that line of reasoning on their part, and so long as it is illegal for them to voice their views, I cannot refute those, either. The sad thing being that I'm capable of the latter (and do it whenever I encounter them in private, where their views can legally be discussed and refuted). quote: I don't think that this inhibits the free expression or exchange of ideas at all. I'm inclined to disagree. If I gather my posting history here on CM in a book and publish it, even if nobody buys it, I will be eligible for up to 8 years in prison for violating §140 of the Norwegian criminal code. For the next few months, it will not be a problem, since the supreme court has ruled that the current law does not include online publication. The revised law that soon enters into effect will explicitly include blogs and forums, at which point there are a significant number of things I cannot express and many ideas I cannot exchange outside a public context. This, I would note, does not tickle my happy-spot. Australia might not be there yet, but I tend to think it will get there if it hasn't already. quote: It is not unreasonable to insist that, if one wishes to express a view on any social/political issue, one does so respectfully. I tend to think this comes down to choosing whether to listen or not. If people want to do the verbal analogue of monkeys flinging poo, I generally stop listening. I sometimes tell people they will have to be respectful if they wish to have an exchange, as well. But I would not want to deny them the right to say something in a manner that might cause me not to listen to it. In part because I make a determination on a case by case basis. Sometimes, I will address the substance of a thing in spite of its presentation. It's not unreasonable to expect people to hold the door open for an elderly lady, either, and I may frown on those who don't, but I will not support mandating it by law. quote: Those who might view this limit on their speech negatively are usually those who are abusing the space others allow for the free expression/exchange of ideas to promote hate and violence. Would you say I am abusing the internet to promote hate and violence? Because my speech is limited by hate speech laws, and I view it negatively, indeed so much so that I suspect it might one day turn into actual hatred (though I note it hasn't yet, and I don't [I]intend[/I] for it to do so; I just point out that based on my knowledge of how the human mind works, it seems plausible that it will, despite my best intentions). quote: Even in the US, free speech is not without limits. Which is lamentable, in my opinion. For instance, I wholeheartedly support the campaign of terror waged against the Nazi occupation in Norway. Which, as a matter of simple consensus, I can do publicly even with the new laws up here. But I can't legally say I would support it again if the situation recurred, nor debate the merits and demerits, the ethics of target selection and so forth. That's consensus, not equal treatment under the law, by the way, which I find objectionable. I would actually prefer it to be illegal to revere "Kjakan" Sønsteby, recently given a state funeral here, as a simple matter of integrity and consistency, though it would be ideal for both to be legal instead. quote: I might add that prosecutions under these laws are very rare. And this doesn't give you pause? That there is a licence to act which is selectively employed without regard for right and wrong, but rather only with an eye to public opinion, political currents and pragmatism/convenience? That popular opinion becomes a standard by which to gauge what can and cannot be voiced in public? quote: I have never heard any one argue that there are problems around the issue of free speech, except those bigots who were prosecuted for their hate speech. Do you consider Noam Chomsky a bigot? He has repeatedly argued in favor of allowing hate speech, no doubt more solidly founded and better articulated than me. Though, of course, if you have a reference to the cases that were prosecuted down there, I might argue it. As I already [I]have[I] argued it for the most recent case up here, howevermuch I think the bigot in question is a largely detestable idiot and would have loved to turn his whole worldview upside down over a pizza one day (it doesn't seem like it would be a challenge). quote: The US model is not universally applicable. I actually think it's quite universally applicable. It might not be universally unproblematic, though. The most certain way to safeguard against a slippery slope is to pin things down. It seems to me that thought has occured to the USA. IWYW, — Aswad.

searching4mysir -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 9:43:55 AM)
quote: I was in New York when Christian fundamentalists were protesting The Last Temptation of Christ outside of movie theaters. It didn't stop me from going, but it also didn't make decide that all Christians were "bad" and needed to be killed. I think we could use some more sophistication in our thinking about the Islamic nations. And I read a lot of stuff from people generally that makes me cringe. But did you fear for your life? Generally, fundamentalist Christian protests are peaceful.

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 9:46:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, nobody is going around making a film on Hosea marrying a whore or Jesus probably being bi but mostly homosexual and hanging with a whore, everybody has him at immaculate conception and didnt fuck. Sort of solves the sex problem if he is a ken doll. Nobody is running an expose on Noah putting the stumps to his daughters in a threesome or Abram having a whore on the side. As I understand it, you're free to do so. quote: I dunno. Kill all purveyors of religion. That would be least offensive to me anyhow. I'm not sure why it would be least offensive to you to kill me. Incidentally, that thought would be illegal to post up here, an entirely secular bit of legislation. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 9:52:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Anyone who thinks their religion makes complete sense, but the religion of all other peoples is "stupid" and "silly" is not being honest with themselves. Agreed, if we include secular belief on both sides of that equation. quote: People, sadly, "need" their religion. Those of us who don't, have to try to live with those who do. I think we addressed this notion of "needing" religion in another thread, you and I. That said, is it so onerous to try to live with me (on the boards, anyhow)? quote: Religion is not going to go away anytime soon. My fear is that if we are not careful we will exterminate each other long before religion dies out....[&:] With or without religion, if we keep all the eggs in one basket and don't find a reasonable balance as regards personal liberties etc., we will probably exterminate each other. My "promised land" is among the stars somewhere, and we aren't going there any time soon. But when we do, extermination becomes a far less likely prospect. That would seem a worthwhile idea to pursue. IWYW, — Aswad.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 9:55:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: I had no idea they treated all the Abrahamic religions equally when it came to hate speech. Yep differently...they burn Christian churches and murder Christians in the streets...but no hate speech. But...We also burned a Mosque in Joplin Mo. I guess...and we allow hate speech. Butch There was also the incident this summer where a white supremacist killed 6 people at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee. It is being investigated by the FBI as a terrorist incident. I guess white terrorism against non-whites? Christian against Sikh? Regardless, I found the terrorist label interesting. Yes, sectarian and religious violence are alive and well everywhere on the face of the planet. There are the laws on the books, and there is what happens in real life. Any American who thinks there is no ethnic and religious violence in the U.S. is mistaken. In 2010 there were over 6,000 hate crimes in the U.S. that involved over 8,000 victims. Over 1300 of these crimes involved crimes relating to religion. This in a country that has free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexual orientation. The only hopeful thing is that generally speaking, if the perpetrators are caught here, they are usually prosecuted. But you have many crimes, like the burning of the mosque, where it is unlikely they will find out who actually did it. As a nation, we should be careful about claiming moral superiority when it comes to things like hate crimes. All one has to do is look at the history of slavery and the civil rights movement to know that Americans know plenty about hating and mistreating people simply for who they are. There are plenty of white people in America who would happily wipe out all of the non-white people on the face of the planet if they could. But again, I don't believe they represent all of America - although they are a larger number than I think any of us would care to admit.

Winterapple -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 9:57:27 AM)
I think a lot of the reactions that were on display after the attacks calling for violence was/is hyperbole born out of outrage and other emotions. Not unlike the anger of the rioters except no one has been murdered in the west (yet). Our government is reacting differently. But in the age of the Internet private citizens behavior can influence how whole countries are seen by some people. The "filmmaker" and Jones have some moral culpability for what happened. As do the flame fanners of Islam. They aren't that different really, they have their ideology and their agenda and they are intent on pushing it, consequences be damned. I don't see this as a freedom of speech issue as some have said. The government is not censoring the people behind the film or Jones. And it's futile to expect people who live in theocracies to accept freedom of speech in the way people who have grown up with it do. One reason people tend to group all religious people under one tent is the public face of Islam and Christianity is mostly the extreme fundamentalist faction. And there are people who think all Christians are bigots obssessed with gay marriage and other social issues that are bent on supressing the personal freedom of others. It doesn't help anything for people in the west to see all Muslims as extremists. Moderate voices need to be heard. Another thing that has to be kept in mind when dealing with factions of fundamentalist wherever they are is that often you aren't dealing with the most worldly or best educated people. The things they see as attacks on their beliefs are not something they can chalk up to a difference of opinion. They feel personally attacked and insulted and other resentments bubble up and become part of their reaction. Inside cultural warfare there is often an element of class warfare. This is evident in the attitudes of some Islamic societies to the west and it's evident in some fundamentalist Christian attitudes towards people they term elites. The mindsets aren't that different. The difference is in an established democracy and countries that are new to the concepts of democracy who have lived for generations under totalitarian rule. That these new states will often choose theocracy as Iran did over democracy is mind boggling to some in the west. But it really shouldn't be.

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 10:03:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Other than that, I am fully with you on protecting free speech. Here is why for my view: you're in effect saying "I'm fully with you on protecting free speech, except what I don't want spoken." To me, restricting what a man can and cannot say seems more apt to incite hate and violence than anything he could actually say, like the rigid lattice of a crystal confining a defect that harbors an immense tension, just waiting for the stimulus that causes the whole thing to shear or shatter. It seems a little ironic to foster tolerance by having none for those in whom tolerance does not thrive. And conflating the symptoms with the illness, to boot. Oppression is one of the measures by which we determine the legitimacy of violence. To use oppression then as a means to fight violence does not seem like the right solution to me. IWYW, — Aswad.

Winterapple -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 10:05:23 AM)
I wish YouTube had refused to show this trailer/film. I don't see that as a suppression of free speech. They are a private enterprise. The thing would still have gotten exposure I imagine but probably not one that had the ability to reach so many.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 10:07:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: I was in New York when Christian fundamentalists were protesting The Last Temptation of Christ outside of movie theaters. It didn't stop me from going, but it also didn't make decide that all Christians were "bad" and needed to be killed. I think we could use some more sophistication in our thinking about the Islamic nations. And I read a lot of stuff from people generally that makes me cringe. But did you fear for your life? Generally, fundamentalist Christian protests are peaceful. You might want to check out the KKK, the Army of God, Christian Identity, Christian Patriots and Lambs of Christ. Do I fear for my life from extremist groups? Yes. Regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim, or whatever their religious background is. Extremists are extremists.

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 10:19:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Care to give a valid example ? The whole western world? As I understand it, there are things that used to trigger hate and violence here that are now both legal and unlikely to incite violence, such as blasphemy. And, if you care to be literal, there's a lot you can say about the royal family in the UK now that was pretty much a surefire way to lose your head once upon a time. Unless we are arrogant enough to posit that we're perfect now, we will continue to progress and improve, which probably means some things are apt to incite now that won't be in the future. And, for opposite examples, modern day China and Korea, earlier the USSR and Germany, to name a few. What you can and cannot say changes in every country in which the answer to that question is other than "anything". What inspires or incites violence also changes, just ask any military recruiter or public relations person. We're just dancing around the impolitical notion of restricting the ability to "foment social discord" and other, similar charges that have been levelled against various people in various countries throughout history and into the future. Charges that are often deemed, with the 20/20 hindsight of historians, nonsensical or bogus, but which are often taken seriously by those levelling them in the time and place they are levelled. It seems humble and prudent to assume such will be historians' verdicts over our present day in a more enlightened future, raising the interesting and potentially guiding question: will they be wrong to judge us thusly? By identifying the areas in which the future will judge us harshly, we can find the road to that more enlightened future, and hasten its arrival. I would like to think free speech is one such area, and that what incites hate and violence today is not what will incite it in that future. IWYW, — Aswad.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 10:38:03 AM)
Let us not think for a moment that the kind of violence that we see happening in other parts of the world could not happen here. Cowards act aggressively when they are in mobs. It is a fact about humans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blw-ZaY_V70&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=related

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 10:50:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Good point. Yes. But what of slanderous comments? Is there a line? Or is speech totally unfettered? There is a line, I suspect, but tackling it will require more finesse than what is evidenced in any hate speech law I'm familiar with. For instance, intent and context start to factor in if you're trying to distinguish the expression of opinions, concepts and arguments from (potentially) causing unjust harm. In effect, speech can sometimes be justified in bringing about harm. A court exemplifies the absurdly clear endpoint of this side of the issue: in a court, speech is used to justify bringing harm to someone. More than a few times, it does so in a manner that involves hatred and/or prejudices as important elements (review statistics on weight and appearance vs sentencing, guilt and credibility, for instance). Generally, it results in disporportionately harming minorities, though it obviously doesn't have an exclusive position in that causal chain. If you're holding a gun to your neighbour's head and I say "shoot the bastard!", that has a function that isn't just expressing something. If I say "I would appreciate if you shoot your neighbour now", it becomes a question of context and intent (e.g. if I were a capo and you an enforcer, this would be functionally equivalent to the former example, beyond any reasonable doubt). If I told you to off Mittens there, it would be more abstract, at least. But, taking a long leap along that spectrum in the direction I was going with this, if I told you that offing Mittens would be justified to prevent WW3 (I'm not saying that, but let's pretend), then we're pretty far into the gray as far as making an exact determination of intent and context in a court of law is concerned. Is it wrong if I debate the right to die? What about euthanasia? How about if it's euthanasia in a limited set of conditions? Can I name the conditions, like Huntington's? Could I name people with the conditions? Still living people? Debate the ethics of a specific case? How close can it get? Slippery slopes and reference point drift are problems that can be limited or avoided by asking the right question. "Is this something one might say in polite company?" is not the right question. "Is this an expression, conspiring, or an order?" is a heck of a lot closer, and a heck of a lot harder to work with in legislation, to say nothing of actually applying it in court. Absent the will to refactor the foundations of law to put such ideas on more universalized and objective grounds, I lean toward the idea of "totally unfettered, so long as I retain the option not to listen to it". IWYW, — Aswad.

Politesub53 -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 12:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Care to give a valid example ? The whole western world? As I understand it, there are things that used to trigger hate and violence here that are now both legal and unlikely to incite violence, such as blasphemy. And, if you care to be literal, there's a lot you can say about the royal family in the UK now that was pretty much a surefire way to lose your head once upon a time. Unless we are arrogant enough to posit that we're perfect now, we will continue to progress and improve, which probably means some things are apt to incite now that won't be in the future. And, for opposite examples, modern day China and Korea, earlier the USSR and Germany, to name a few. What you can and cannot say changes in every country in which the answer to that question is other than "anything". What inspires or incites violence also changes, just ask any military recruiter or public relations person. We're just dancing around the impolitical notion of restricting the ability to "foment social discord" and other, similar charges that have been levelled against various people in various countries throughout history and into the future. Charges that are often deemed, with the 20/20 hindsight of historians, nonsensical or bogus, but which are often taken seriously by those levelling them in the time and place they are levelled. It seems humble and prudent to assume such will be historians' verdicts over our present day in a more enlightened future, raising the interesting and potentially guiding question: will they be wrong to judge us thusly? By identifying the areas in which the future will judge us harshly, we can find the road to that more enlightened future, and hasten its arrival. I would like to think free speech is one such area, and that what incites hate and violence today is not what will incite it in that future. IWYW, — Aswad. Point taken......... I think the constant drip of scare stories in the media dosent help, especially when many of these views are expressed without knowledge of the facts. A free press is essential, many countries dont have this and are drip fed political, religous views that are one sided. The free press shouldnt abuse that position though.

Politesub53 -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/19/2012 1:28:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Other than that, I am fully with you on protecting free speech. Here is why for my view: you're in effect saying "I'm fully with you on protecting free speech, except what I don't want spoken." To me, restricting what a man can and cannot say seems more apt to incite hate and violence than anything he could actually say, like the rigid lattice of a crystal confining a defect that harbors an immense tension, just waiting for the stimulus that causes the whole thing to shear or shatter. It seems a little ironic to foster tolerance by having none for those in whom tolerance does not thrive. And conflating the symptoms with the illness, to boot. Oppression is one of the measures by which we determine the legitimacy of violence. To use oppression then as a means to fight violence does not seem like the right solution to me. IWYW, — Aswad. Hi Aswad. I know many wont agree with me on this, I am fine with that. I dont agree that any measure to reduce violence on innocents is oppression. I view it as the opposite. I see it as allowing people to have freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality without suffering constant harrasment. The difficulty I guess is the freedom of A intereferes with the freedom of B.

Aswad -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/20/2012 4:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I know many wont agree with me on this, I am fine with that. I hope you didn't take my objections as a dismissal of your views. I used to espouse them myself, and I consider the goal laudable, though our opinions differ on how to best balance the various concerns and issues. quote: I dont agree that any measure to reduce violence on innocents is oppression. I view it as the opposite. I see it as allowing people to have freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality without suffering constant harrasment. The difficulty I guess is the freedom of A intereferes with the freedom of B. In my experience, social friction is best suppressed through education, rather than by pursuing those that have an issue with something. I also note that these measures generally single out certain groups for protection, and I have on several occasions been in the groups that are not protected. My dear Ars is currently in one group that is constantly harassed here- obese people- and there is no protection from that harassment (indeed, the surgeon general has advocated excluding them from the universalized healthcare system, even when there are endocrine disorders underlying the obesity, as in her case; note that no other group is singled out based on choices, costs or anything else, including groups with higher risk or those who intentionally expose themselves to risk as an informed choice). Not every measure to reduce violence is oppression, but neither is every measure legitimate. The ends justifying the means doesn't sit right with me. And I tend to think we have gotten something right with the notion that punishing an innocent is a graver fault than letting guilty people walk. I'm obviously acutely aware of this particular side of it because I'm one of those whose freedom is impinged on by these admittedly well-intentioned laws, and I would like to think we can agree that there is little reason to restrict my freedom of speech. Thus, another side of this is collateral. Is my voice an acceptable loss to confine the voices of bigots to echo chambers where they can nurse their views without the moderating influences of reasonable and balanced individuals? Because if it is, you and me have a problem (in the transposed/projected sense of "you" here; we're in different countries, after all). I hope that problem is apparent to both of us. It is on the bigots when they step on me, or anyone else. Limiting my freedom unjustly, however, is on those responsible for doing so- not the bigots, in pursuit of which they step on me. The boot on my face is my enemy, not the person being chased by the person wearing the boot. And a boot on my face is something with which I have little patience, particularly when it is unprovoked and inescapable. That there is in itself injustice, and when we make ourselves its perpetrators in pursuit of social harmony, knowingly and not accidentally, then we're crossing lines I think we shouldn't cross. Some of them potentially quite dangerous to cross, as well. I'm not going to run through the whole argument, but I do have a thought experiment. The one that made me abandon this line of thought in the first place. Simply put, write down the premises and reasoning required to arrive at this conclusion, and then apply it elsewhere. By which I mean apply it to such things as trials, policework, tax codes, domestic security, and so forth. What I arrived at in doing so was not a conclusion I could live with. And I'm not much for passing off exceptions as justice or justified. If you care to do the experiment, I would be interested in hearing the outcome. Incidentally, I still don't have good figures on the efficacy of these measures. What exactly did you buy with my freedom? [sm=2cents.gif] IWYW, — Aswad.

Politesub53 -> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches (9/20/2012 4:28:34 PM)
"I hope you didn't take my objections as a dismissal of your views" Your posts are too reasoned to be classed as simply dismissive. Thanks for your reasoning on the change of view, I will have a ponder.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875