#IStandWithHateSpeech is trending

[dismal]

Sounds more like "circle jerk on Twitter by bigots".

That's the spirit Jimmy. Calling principled free speech advocates "bigots" is hateful. Way to unleash the hate speech, but you forgot the hashtag.

 

[ZiprHead]

Please, please, please forget the hashtag. Argument by twitter tag is about as juvenile as it gets.

 

[Lion IRC]

The freedom of expression is extremely important to maintain democracy and allow people to see different views, even if those which are not acceptable to some.

What democratic governments are trying to do is determine what is hate speech, namely an inciting of violence. In England and Wales this would be hatred due to colour, race, nationality,ethnic or national origin, religion, political views or sexual orientation. Writing about extremists in Islam would not be hate speech but scapegoating all Muslims so as to create hatred about them could problems.

Soon, criticising Christianity will be labeled hate speech. That's my reason for supporting the initiative, even though it means having embarrassing company.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sounds more like "circle jerk on Twitter by bigots".

That's the spirit Jimmy. Calling principled free speech advocates "bigots" is hateful. Way to unleash the hate speech, but you forgot the hashtag.

Yep.

The delicious irony goes even further.
Guess who taught the #IStandWithHateSpeech folks to stand up and be heard?
Guess who taught them that diversity ought to be tolerated and embraced?
Guess who taught them that everyone, all of 'us' and all of 'them' has the right to express their identity. #born_this_way

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's the spirit Jimmy. Calling principled free speech advocates "bigots" is hateful. Way to unleash the hate speech, but you forgot the hashtag.

Yep.

The delicious irony goes even further.
Guess who taught the #IStandWithHateSpeech folks to stand up and be heard?
Guess who taught them that diversity ought to be tolerated and embraced?
Guess who taught them that everyone, all of 'us' and all of 'them' has the right to express their identity. #born_this_way

Odd, I never said I think they aren't allowed to said bigoted things.

 

[dismal]

Yep.

The delicious irony goes even further.
Guess who taught the #IStandWithHateSpeech folks to stand up and be heard?
Guess who taught them that diversity ought to be tolerated and embraced?
Guess who taught them that everyone, all of 'us' and all of 'them' has the right to express their identity. #born_this_way

Odd, I never said I think they aren't allowed to said bigoted things.

Of course, as a hatemonger yourself why would you?

 

[Lion IRC]

Calling people bigots is hate speech.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Calling people bigots is hate speech.

Judgmental, yes. Hate speech, no. Accurate, most likely. They should feel free to continue their circle jerk. You can join them if you'd like.

 

[dismal]

Calling people bigots is hate speech.

Judgmental, yes. Hate speech, no. Accurate, most likely. They should feel free to continue their circle jerk. You can join them if you'd like.

When you start calling people bigots for quoting Voltaire you've clearly crossed the line into hate speech.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Soon, criticising Christianity will be labeled hate speech. That's my reason for supporting the initiative, even though it means having embarrassing company.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Does that mean the Syrian government is friendly with ISIS because the Syrian Free Army is fighting them? Alternatively is it a friend of the Syrian Free Army because it is also fighting ISIS?

 

[whichphilosophy]

scapegoating all Muslims so as to create hatred about them could problems.

Perhaps, but this type of speech is protected in the U.S., and should be protected elsewhere as free speech.

Free speech laws are complex and we will have issues for years. The point was to say that if you scapegoat people (Muslims in this instance) it causes problems. In a similar manner Jews were also scapegoated for 2,000 years and still are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Judgmental, yes. Hate speech, no. Accurate, most likely. They should feel free to continue their circle jerk. You can join them if you'd like.

When you start calling people bigots for quoting Voltaire you've clearly crossed the line into hate speech.

I can quote Ben Carson on neurosurgery. Doesn't mean I'd know what he was talking about.

But please don't let me get in the way of all the jerking.

 

[dismal]

More circle jerking about hate speech for Higgins:

ANASTASIA Bubeyeva shows a screenshot on her computer of a picture of a toothpaste tube with the words: “Squeeze Russia out of yourself!” For sharing this picture on a social media site with his 12 friends, her husband was sentenced this month to more than two years in prison.

As the Kremlin claims unequivocal support among Russians for its policies both at home and abroad, a crackdown is underway against ordinary social media users who post things that run against the official narrative. Here the Kremlin’s interests coincide with those of investigators, who are anxious to report high conviction rates for extremism. The Kremlin didn’t immediately comment on the issue.

At least 54 people were sent to prison for hate speech last year, most of them for sharing and posting things online

...

The overall number of convictions for hate speech in Russia increased to 233 last year from 92 in 2010. A 2002 Russian law defines extremism as activities that aim to undermine the nation’s security or constitutional order, or glorify terrorism or racism, as well as calling for others to do so.

The vagueness of the phrasing and the scope of offences that fall under the extremism clause allow for the prosecution of a wide range of people, from those who set up an extremist cell or display Nazi symbols to anyone who writes something online that could be deemed a danger to the state. In the end, it’s up to the court to decide whether a social media post poses a danger to the nation or not.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...s/news-story/9cb54ddab2810129920d560f4eb5983b

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry, can't believe that report. We know from the Russian apologists here that Russian news reports and statements from the government are bastions of truthiness and freedom.

 

[dismal]

Sorry, can't believe that report. We know from the Russian apologists here that Russian news reports and statements from the government are bastions of truthiness and freedom.

Maybe the Russian apologists here are trying not to get arrested for anti-Russian hate speech...

 

[ZiprHead]

Hadn't thought of that. Good call.

 

[ronburgundy]

I support this clown's right to wear that shirt. The irony is that like most conservatives, he is very likely to be the first to use government to shut down speech, throw flag burners in jail, go batshit crazy when Janet's boob was exposed, and support MPAA and FCC censorship. Also, rules against public nudity are no different than speech censorship.
There is no principled differed between him wearing that shirt and a women wearing no shirt in public.

Very few of the people claiming to support this guy have any principled commitment to the liberties they are pretending to care about.

 

[JonA]

Perhaps, but this type of speech is protected in the U.S., and should be protected elsewhere as free speech.

Inciting violence is not protected.

What incites one person to violence may incite another person to peace.

 

[Lion IRC]

Suppose I say - in public - that I believe same sex marriage is immoral because blah blah blah...

Is that hate speech or free speech?

Does it incite some people to violence? Yes maybe - violence against me.

Who can tell another person what they must tolerate?
And if I must tolerate your sexual identity you must surely have to tolerate my spiritual identity.

 

[Sarpedon]

What incites one person to violence may incite another person to peace.

Please, give me an example of such a thing.