Should Speech Deemd Offensive Be Supressed And Punished?

[Trausti]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Laws against perjury are laws against speech. Are they wrong? How about laws against inciting violence or riots?

Perjury can only happen if you say something untruthful under oath. It has no other application.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Seems like a very reasonable point of view to me.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Laws against perjury are laws against speech. Are they wrong? How about laws against inciting violence or riots?

Trausti did say "expressing an unpopular opinion", statements made under oath in a court of law are not understood to be opinions, and neither are calls to action.

ETA: I do see where Trausti did plainly mentioned speech as well. Sorry I missed that earlier.

 

[laughing dog]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Laws against perjury are laws against speech. Are they wrong? How about laws against inciting violence or riots?

Perjury can only happen if you say something untruthful under oath. It has no other application.

That is unresponsive to the issue. Laws against perjury are laws against speech. Laws against inciting violence or riots are laws against speech. If you think they are not wrong, then clearly laws against speech are not wrong, only laws against certain types of speech are wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Laws against perjury are laws against speech. Are they wrong? How about laws against inciting violence or riots?

Trausti did say "expressing an unpopular opinion", statements made under oath in a court of law are not understood to be opinions, and neither are calls to action.

Trausti wrote any law that punishes speech OR expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong. Ordinary reading of that sentence means "speech" is not the same as "expressing an unpopular opinion". My point is that there are laws against speech. And, I suspect, not everyone things that every law against speech is wrong.

 

[KeepTalking]

Trausti did say "expressing an unpopular opinion", statements made under oath in a court of law are not understood to be opinions, and neither are calls to action.

Trausti wrote any law that punishes speech OR expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong. Ordinary reading of that sentence means "speech" is not the same as "expressing an unpopular opinion". My point is that there are laws against speech. And, I suspect, not everyone things that every law against speech is wrong.

You are correct, I had previously read his comment as only meaning "expressing an unpopular opinion", in review I see that he mentions speech in general as well. Of course your objection makes much more sense in that light, and I agree with it.

 

[Trausti]

Perjury can only happen if you say something untruthful under oath. It has no other application.

That is unresponsive to the issue. Laws against perjury are laws against speech. Laws against inciting violence or riots are laws against speech. If you think they are not wrong, then clearly laws against speech are not wrong, only laws against certain types of speech are wrong.

I'm using "speech" in the legal sense.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

The right demands the freedom to keep lying without being called on their lies.

If you're talking about Metaphor, he didn't lie, he didn't demand the freedom to keep lying without being called on his lie, and that you would think he counts as "The right" says more about where you are on the political spectrum than where he is. If you're talking about the GOP Representatives, you can call them on their lies any time you like and they didn't try to stop you from calling them on their lies.

But the larger point here is that if you read ZH's link, you'll see the crucial words "A similar attempt failed last year — and will almost certainly fail again this time.". The right is driving bills restricting speech; the left is driving laws restricting speech. The purpose of all this whataboutism appears to be to blunt criticism of the left by claiming the right is equally guilty. While they may be equally guilty for their attempts -- a plague on both your houses -- attempts driven by the left keep succeeding and attempts driven by the right keep failing. So why in the name of dog should the freedom-loving liberals of the world be just as concerned about the old tired dying religion as we are about the new aggressive expanding religion?

 

[Gospel]

This poll is basically asking if we should continue doing what we're already doing. Which is:

Both suppressing & not suppressing & punishing and not punishing offensive speech depending on the situation:
1) Grandma on her couch yells "fucking pigs!" inside her house? Neither suppression nor punishment may occur.
2) Grandma on her couch yells "fucking pigs!" within earshot of the public outside her house & someone files a complaint? Neither suppression nor punishment may occur.
3) Grandma on her porch yells "fucking pigs!" within earshot of the public outside her house & someone files a complaint? Suppression &/or punishment may occur.
4) Grandma at Sams Club yells "fucking pigs!" within earshot of the public? Suppression &/or punishment may occur.
5) Grandma on her couch yells "fucking nigger" inside her house? Neither suppression nor punishment may occur.
6) Grandma on her couch yells "fucking nigger" within earshot of the public outside her house & someone files a complaint? Neither suppression nor punishment may occur.
7) Grandma on her porch yells "fucking nigger" within earshot of the public outside her house & someone files a complaint? Suppression &/or punishment may occur.
8) Grandma at Sams Club yells "fucking nigger" within earshot of the public? Suppression &/or punishment may occur.
9) Grandma while running a private platform yells "fucking pigs!" & "fucking nigger!" within view of the public over the internet? Neither suppression nor punishment may occur.
10) Grandma while running a private platform yells "fucking pigs!" & "fucking nigger!" within a structure or on private property being used by said platform? Neither suppression nor punishment may occur.

Note: People have the freedom to react to any of the events above (for example, an employer choosing to fire Gradma) within the scope of what laws provide.

That's just my take.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Hate crime laws about about aggravating circumstances to existing crimes, not making speech alone criminal.

 

[Trausti]

This is all semantics. Hate Speech, Blasphemy, whatever. Regardless what you call it, any law that punishes people for speech or expressing an unpopular opinion is wrong.

Hate crime laws about about aggravating circumstances to existing crimes, not making speech alone criminal.

OK

 

[Metaphor]

No, I would not say that. The formulation of that sentence implies a near-equivalency. A sentence I might endorse is:

Although the right sometimes proposes and enacts hate speech laws, the majority of such laws are driven by the left.

So you refuse to say both sides do it because one side does it more. That does not seem to be reasonable position, but you are welcome to it, just don't expect anyone approaching the topic reasonably to agree with you.

No, I refuse to use a sentence that implies an equivalency when there is a significant skew. The entire point of my original point was the non-equivalency.

Imagine instead that we were talking about sexual harassment, and somebody brought up the victimhood statistics by saying "although both men and women can be victims of sexual harassment, it is far more prevalent for women" and you responded with "nonsense! Why aren't you saying "Men and women are both victimised by sexual harassment"' without further qualification?"

 

[Metaphor]

Not to mention that it's straight up bullshit. I see the left passing hate CRIME laws, and enforcing laws that ensure public access to public business. That is not hate speech, that is hate action. All the blasphemy, anti-anti-cop, anti-protest bills I see are out of the right wing.

The myopic, cloistered American smugness Jarhyn displays right here.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, I would not say that. The formulation of that sentence implies a near-equivalency. A sentence I might endorse is:

Although the right sometimes proposes and enacts hate speech laws, the majority of such laws are driven by the left.

So you refuse to say both sides do it because one side does it more. That does not seem to be reasonable position, but you are welcome to it, just don't expect anyone approaching the topic reasonably to agree with you.

No, I refuse to use a sentence that implies an equivalency when there is a significant skew. The entire point of my original point was the non-equivalency.

Sorry, I won't allow you to get away with that. Your original point was that they were not driven by the right:

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.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I refuse to use a sentence that implies an equivalency when there is a significant skew. The entire point of my original point was the non-equivalency.

Sorry, I won't allow you to get away with that. Your original point was that they were not driven by the right:

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.

Get away with what?

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are not driven by both sides of the political divide. If they were, I would have no problem agreeing with the sentence "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"."hate speech laws are driven by the left" is a denial, a negation, of "hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide".

 

[KeepTalking]

Sorry, I won't allow you to get away with that. Your original point was that they were not driven by the right:

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.

Get away with what?

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are not driven by both sides of the political divide. If they were, I would have no problem agreeing with the sentence "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"."hate speech laws are driven by the left" is a denial, a negation, of "hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide".

Just make up your mind already:

I already said, in post 106, that the Kentucky bill counts as an attempt to outlaw "hate speech" and that it was driven by right-leaning legislators.

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry, I won't allow you to get away with that. Your original point was that they were not driven by the right:

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.

Get away with what?

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are not driven by both sides of the political divide. If they were, I would have no problem agreeing with the sentence "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"."hate speech laws are driven by the left" is a denial, a negation, of "hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide".

Just make up your mind already:

I already said, in post 106, that the Kentucky bill counts as an attempt to outlaw "hate speech" and that it was driven by right-leaning legislators.

I made up my mind already.

The existence of an instance of hate speech driven by the right in no way invalidates a rejection of the statement "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide". Saying the Kentucky bill is 'driven by the right' is a specific statement about a particular incident. "Hate speech is driven by the left" does not negate any particular instance of hate speech that is driven by the right.

"This particular example of hate speech was driven by the right".
"Hate speech is driven by the left".

The above two sentences are both true. I'm sorry if this confuses you.

EDIT: Perhaps an analogy will help.

"This particular violent crime was perpetrated by a woman"
"Violent crime is perpetrated by men"

Maybe the generality of the second statements is not conveyed to you. Imagine instead that the two sentences say:
"Hate speech is generallydriven by the left".
"Violent crime is generally perpetrated by men"

 

[KeepTalking]

Sorry, I won't allow you to get away with that. Your original point was that they were not driven by the right:

Get away with what?

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. They are not driven by both sides of the political divide. If they were, I would have no problem agreeing with the sentence "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"."hate speech laws are driven by the left" is a denial, a negation, of "hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide".

Just make up your mind already:

I already said, in post 106, that the Kentucky bill counts as an attempt to outlaw "hate speech" and that it was driven by right-leaning legislators.

I made up my mind already.

The existence of an instance of hate speech driven by the right in no way invalidates a rejection of the statement "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide". Saying the Kentucky bill is 'driven by the right' is a specific statement about a particular incident. "Hate speech is driven by the left" does not negate any particular instance of hate speech that is driven by the right.

"This particular example of hate speech was driven by the right".
"Hate speech is driven by the left".

The above two sentences are both true. I'm sorry if this confuses you.

It doesn't. What does confuse me is that if both of those things are true, how is "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide" not true?

EDIT: Perhaps an analogy will help.

"This particular violent crime was perpetrated by a woman"
"Violent crime is perpetrated by men"

Maybe the generality of the second statements is not conveyed to you. Imagine instead that the two sentences say:
"Hate speech is generallydriven by the left".
"Violent crime is generally perpetrated by men"

Regardless, it is still true that violent crime is perpetrated by both men and women. So, why is it not true that hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide?

 

[Metaphor]

It doesn't. What does confuse me is that if both of those things are true, how is "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide" not true?

Because "hate speech is driven by the left" is incompatible wiht "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide". Those sentences make conflicting claims about the world. The first sentence claims that it is mostly or entirely the left that drives hate speech laws, and the second sentence claims that both the left and the right drive hate speech laws about equally or not so different from equal that it would be worth singling out a particular side.

Regardless, it is still true that violent crime is perpetrated by both men and women. So, why is it not true that hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide?

Because hate speech laws are driven by the left.

 

[KeepTalking]

It doesn't. What does confuse me is that if both of those things are true, how is "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide" not true?

Because "hate speech is driven by the left" is incompatible wiht "hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide". Those sentences make conflicting claims about the world. The first sentence claims that it is mostly or entirely the left that drives hate speech laws, and the second sentence claims that both the left and the right drive hate speech laws about equally or not so different from equal that it would be worth singling out a particular side.

Regardless, it is still true that violent crime is perpetrated by both men and women. So, why is it not true that hate speech is driven by both sides of the political divide?

Because hate speech laws are driven by the left.

You have already admitted that at least one hate speech law was driven by the right.
Therefor is is true that hate speech law is driven by the right.
Given that hate speech law is also driven by the left, it is necessarily true that hate speech law is driven by both the right and the left.
It is a matter of logic.
If you can't agree with that, we have nothing left to discuss.