Should Speech Deemd Offensive Be Supressed And Punished?

[Metaphor]

Great, we are making progress. Now, do you understand that those "who may genuinely believe that "hate speech", when heard by others, leads to violence" may not fit your blanket statement below?

No. There is no such thing as 'violent' expression because words are not and cannot be violence.

No. My statement that people who want hate speech prohibition would still want it even if there was no evidence of a link between hate speech and violent actions is not incompatible with 'some people genuinely believe that hate speech leads to violence'.

Undoubtedly quite a few (perhaps the majority) would, as a lack of evidence for a link is not evidence that there is no link.

I know that.

Feeling strong emotions does not mean one is emotionally unstable. Being unable to control your emotions, however, is a sign that one is not emotionally stable. Violent rage is only one way that emotional instability can be displayed. If you feel that you have difficulty controlling your emotions, even if that does not manifest violently, and you are not already doing so, I would encourage you to seek counseling, and I am in no way trying to be snarky here. Emotional health can be just as important as physical and mental health.

I am simply pointing out the error in your reasoning. I am not violent, but that does not mean I am emotionally stable.

You are correct.

So then, I still don't understand. Hate speech prohibition laws are not justified by people saying "when you call people names, those people will violently attack you, so we are going to stop you calling them names". Hate speech prohibition laws are more like "when you call people names, that will encourage other people to violently attack the people who were called names".

Once again you are correct, blasphemy laws are not enacted to allow people to call somebody a blasphemer, however, it is an effect of those laws that people will be called blasphemers. Given that the punishment for blasphemy is often quite severe, a violent reaction to being called a "blasphemer" would not be unexpected.

Blasphemy laws are not necessary for somebody to call someone else a blasphemer. The concept of blasphemy exists outside laws made by the State.

I agree in both cases. That does not mean that I think that those who attempt to enact hate speech laws are some monolithic whole existing solely on the left with the exact same reason driving each and every one of them.

I said hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are. I don't understand why it's such a controversial statement. The left is proud of introducing hate speech laws. It isn't some controversy they want to disavow ownership of.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have snipped the bulk of our back and forth, as I think it would be counterproductive at this point. The end of your post seems to drive at the heart of the matter.

I agree in both cases. That does not mean that I think that those who attempt to enact hate speech laws are some monolithic whole existing solely on the left with the exact same reason driving each and every one of them.

I said hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are. I don't understand why it's such a controversial statement. The left is proud of introducing hate speech laws. It isn't some controversy they want to disavow ownership of.

It is a controversial statement because it leaves out the significant probability that there are those on the right who also back hate speech laws. It is also a controversial statement because there are those of us on the left who do not agree with hate speech laws. Your statements leave no room for nuance, and you argue against any nuance anyone tries to show you.

 

[laughing dog]

I have snipped the bulk of our back and forth, as I think it would be counterproductive at this point. The end of your post seems to drive at the heart of the matter.

I agree in both cases. That does not mean that I think that those who attempt to enact hate speech laws are some monolithic whole existing solely on the left with the exact same reason driving each and every one of them.

I said hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are. I don't understand why it's such a controversial statement. The left is proud of introducing hate speech laws. It isn't some controversy they want to disavow ownership of.

It is a controversial statement because it leaves out the significant probability that there are those on the right who also back hate speech laws. It is also a controversial statement because there are those of us on the left who do not agree with hate speech laws. Your statements leave no room for nuance, and you argue against any nuance anyone tries to show you.

IMO it is a sign of immature reasoning to deny the existence of nuance. Yes, some hate speech laws are driven by people on the left. Of course, there are those on the left who fight against hate speech laws. And some hate speech laws are not driven by people on the left.

It is really a function of immature thinking - that the issue is black and white with nothing in between - that drives people to make such blatantly false claims like "the left drives hate speech because it makes people feel bad" and then claim they are unable to comprehend why anyone would take issue with it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

 

[Trausti]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

It’s wrong no matter who does it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

It’s wrong no matter who does it.

You mean like bakers who discriminate against trans people?

 

[Trausti]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

It’s wrong no matter who does it.

You mean like bakers who discriminate against trans people?

Is the discrimination based on trans identity or compelled speech?

 

[ZiprHead]

You mean like bakers who discriminate against trans people?

Is the discrimination based on trans identity or compelled speech?

There was no speech.

 

[Metaphor]

I have snipped the bulk of our back and forth, as I think it would be counterproductive at this point. The end of your post seems to drive at the heart of the matter.

I agree in both cases. That does not mean that I think that those who attempt to enact hate speech laws are some monolithic whole existing solely on the left with the exact same reason driving each and every one of them.

I said hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are. I don't understand why it's such a controversial statement. The left is proud of introducing hate speech laws. It isn't some controversy they want to disavow ownership of.

It is a controversial statement because it leaves out the significant probability that there are those on the right who also back hate speech laws. It is also a controversial statement because there are those of us on the left who do not agree with hate speech laws. Your statements leave no room for nuance, and you argue against any nuance anyone tries to show you.

You have read the lack of nuance into it. "Hate speech laws are driven by the left" is not a false statement, even if there are people on the left who disagree and even if there are people on the right who support hate speech laws. It's also not a false statement if only a minority on the left are driving it: it just means that minority has significant power.

"Blasphemy laws are driven by the right" is a true statement even though most people on the right don't support blasphemy laws. (I leave out that I believe misgendering laws are a new kind of "secular" blasphemy law driven by the left).

 

[Metaphor]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

What is the purpose of introducing this whataboutism? If you want to discuss whether that case violates the Constitution, discuss it in that thread. I don't know if it does or not. (Though if it does it seems to me every court in the United States violates the Constitution multiple times per day).

 

[KeepTalking]

It is a controversial statement because it leaves out the significant probability that there are those on the right who also back hate speech laws. It is also a controversial statement because there are those of us on the left who do not agree with hate speech laws. Your statements leave no room for nuance, and you argue against any nuance anyone tries to show you.

You have read the lack of nuance into it. "Hate speech laws are driven by the left" is not a false statement, even if there are people on the left who disagree and even if there are people on the right who support hate speech laws.

Well, congratulations, now it is an entirely insignificant statement. Why didn't you just say "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

It's also not a false statement if only a minority on the left are driving it: it just means that minority has significant power.

Oh, well at least you are still making one false statement. It in no way means that the minority has significant power.

Wait, am I just missing some hidden nuance again?

 

[Metaphor]

Well, congratulations, now it is an entirely insignificant statement. Why didn't you just say "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

Because that would be a false statement. Hate speech laws are not driven by both sides of the political divide. They are driven by the left.

Oh, well at least you are still making one false statement. It in no way means that the minority has significant power.

Wait, am I just missing some hidden nuance again?

You're missing the meaning of words.

 

[ZiprHead]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

What is the purpose of introducing this whataboutism? If you want to discuss whether that case violates the Constitution, discuss it in that thread. I don't know if it does or not. (Though if it does it seems to me every court in the United States violates the Constitution multiple times per day).

Saying "So help me, god." is always optional in the US. This is a rightie not only compelling speech but also compelling deference to a deity.

 

[Politesse]

Saying "So help me, god." is always optional in the US.

This is true, though it is not always made clear to participants that it is true, and it is known that appearing non-religious can have a very negative effect on the outcomes of jury cases, so once invited to repeat a religious phrasing or place their hand on a religious text, a person might well feel compelled by the circumstance set up by the "request" to do so. Even if you know you technically have a right to refusal, if you have to visibly refuse, you can be rightly worried in many US court systems that a jury might react to your refusal to touch a Bible much the same way they would react to an accused vampire refusing to eat a proferred plate of garlic bread.

 

[Jarhyn]

Saying "So help me, god." is always optional in the US.

This is true, though it is not always made clear to participants that it is true, and it is known that appearing non-religious can have a very negative effect on the outcomes of jury cases, so once invited to repeat a religious phrasing or place their hand on a religious text, a person might well feel compelled by the circumstance set up by the "request" to do so. Even if you know you technically have a right to refusal, if you have to visibly refuse, you can be rightly worried in many US court systems that a jury might react to your refusal to touch a Bible much the same way they would react to an accused vampire refusing to eat a proferred plate of garlic bread.

Yeah, it's not really a freedom if the decision may lead any governmentally enforced consequence.

The only time any thing of any religious nature should pass the doorway of a courthouse or occur under it's roof is when a member of a religious organization is on trial or laying suit, or someone was harmed in a church of some variety.

No reference to god(s) should exist in any oath administered by the government.

Now, I know some things: Gods may be exactly as stupid and mean and uncouth as us, even were they to exist. They may in fact be worse that us and believe in entirely different, fucked up, and/or equally potentially non-existent gods. They too may discover their gods are actually like us, and them, and shitty. Oh the irony!

I shouldn't be judged for my refusal to worship what made me. I don't worship my parents either.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, congratulations, now it is an entirely insignificant statement. Why didn't you just say "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

Because that would be a false statement. Hate speech laws are not driven by both sides of the political divide. They are driven by the left.

Oh, so they are supported by the right, just not driven by the right. Yeah, whatever, Mr. Nuance.

 

[laughing dog]

Poor Metaphor. The left, the left, the left. Yet no comment about this case of multiple violations of the constitution.

What is the purpose of introducing this whataboutism? If you want to discuss whether that case violates the Constitution, discuss it in that thread. I don't know if it does or not. (Though if it does it seems to me every court in the United States violates the Constitution multiple times per day).

Saying "So help me, god." is always optional in the US. This is a rightie not only compelling speech but also compelling deference to a deity.

To be fair, he won't be covered by Fox News or the Daily Mail or the NY post.

 

[Gun Nut]

GOP Lawmaker Files Bill Forcing Witnesses to Say “So Help Me God” in House Oaths

Republicans have filed yet another bill to force witnesses in front of House committees to say “So help me God” in their oaths. A similar attempt failed last year — and will almost certainly fail again this time.

It all stems from a number of high-profile incidents in which Democrats left those religious words off of the oaths they administered to witnesses — accidentally, theoretically, and purposely.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) has now filed House Resolution 281, requiring witnesses to go through with the godly ritual:

Resolved, That clause 2(m)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking “may administer oaths to witnesses” and inserting “shall administer the following oath to witnesses: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?’”.

The wording is identical to last year’s attempt. This version also has 15 co-sponsors — all Republicans. They include alleged sexual predator Madison Cawthorn, alleged sexual predator Matt Gaetz, and a whole bunch of other conservative Christians.

Johnson also said this in defense of his time-wasting unconstitutional bill:

“This resolution is simple. It would require witnesses before all House Committees to take the same oath that is used in every courtroom in America, from small claims court all the way to the Supreme Court, when testifying before Congress. Earlier this year, Democrats blocked this simple amendment to our Judiciary Committee Rules, even though several other House Committees already have this requirement.”

I have been an expert witness in multiple cases, been sworn in to the record many times, but never have I , nor will I ever, be in a position to testify to Congress about anything. I'm just not that important. I have never been compelled to take an oath with overt religious underpinnings. I always have been a witness for the plaintiff, so never want to piss off the judge or jury, because my employer has a big stake in the outcome.
However, if asked, in Congress, to swear "on God", I woul dhave some questions. I would state that I do not understand the question, to the point of what or which God they are referring... That to swear upon a false God would be blasphemous so a clear definition and categorization of the specific god in question would be need for me to answer the question / make the attestation... Such a narrow definition sufficient for a court of law to act on would certainly become the favoring of one religion over another, to which I would object as being a violation of my constitutional rights.
But I couldn't ever really do that in my line of work where my employer would fire me if I pissed off the judge who knows I work for the plaintiff... it would reflect badly on the case, even though it shouldn't.

 

[Trausti]

You mean like bakers who discriminate against trans people?

Is the discrimination based on trans identity or compelled speech?

There was no speech.

If you want to simply buy a cake, correct. If you want the baker to write something on the cake the baker disagrees with or views offensive, then incorrect.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, congratulations, now it is an entirely insignificant statement. Why didn't you just say "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

Because that would be a false statement. Hate speech laws are not driven by both sides of the political divide. They are driven by the left.

Oh, so they are supported by the right, just not driven by the right. Yeah, whatever, Mr. Nuance.

Yes. I chose my words carefully. Hate speech laws are not driven by the right.