Should Speech Deemd Offensive Be Supressed And Punished?

[KeepTalking]

A more simple way to phrase that would be "The left has no problem with hate speech." In that case, I have no idea why they would want to enact hate speech laws.

Yes, I agree my statement was poorly worded. The left is not typified by its allergy to using the State to proscribe speech it does not like.

Neither is the right.

 

[Metaphor]

A more simple way to phrase that would be "The left has no problem with hate speech." In that case, I have no idea why they would want to enact hate speech laws.

Yes, I agree my statement was poorly worded. The left is not typified by its allergy to using the State to proscribe speech it does not like.

Neither is the right.

Recently, it is only the left that has criminalised speech in the Anglosphere (excepting, of course, the US, where they can't get away with it).

 

[Trausti]

Neither is the right.

Recently, it is only the left that has criminalised speech in the Anglosphere (excepting, of course, the US, where they can't get away with it).

The better course may be to agree that whether it's done by the left or the right it's wrong. "Hate speech" and blasphemy laws are one and the same.

 

[Metaphor]

Neither is the right.

Recently, it is only the left that has criminalised speech in the Anglosphere (excepting, of course, the US, where they can't get away with it).

The better course may be to agree that whether it's done by the left or the right it's wrong. "Hate speech" and blasphemy laws are one and the same.

Yep.

 

[KeepTalking]

Neither is the right.

Recently, it is only the left that has criminalised speech in the Anglosphere (excepting, of course, the US, where they can't get away with it).

And for the entirety of recorded history it is the right that has criminalized speech and expression worldwide. That is why what you say rings so hollow, you have to limit your statement to very recent events in the Angloshpere, and ignore other places around the world (like in India), where the right wing is still up to their old tricks. The left is working to rewind blasphemy laws around the world currently. Blasphemy laws enacted by the right. Blasphemy laws that only serve to persecute peaceful expression, and enshrine hate. At least laws against hate speech come from the view that violent expression is the thing that should be curtailed, and hatred is not a thing to be encouraged. They may be wrong to go about it in the way they have, but I can hardly blame them after enduring millennia if right wing religious persecution enshrined in law.

 

[Trausti]

Neither is the right.

Recently, it is only the left that has criminalised speech in the Anglosphere (excepting, of course, the US, where they can't get away with it).

And for the entirety of recorded history it is the right that has criminalized speech and expression worldwide.

Did you miss the 20th Century?

 

[Metaphor]

And for the entirety of recorded history it is the right that has criminalized speech and expression worldwide.

So...what, exactly? I don't live in the entirety of recorded history. I live right now.

That is why what you say rings so hollow, you have to limit your statement to very recent events in the Angloshpere, and ignore other places around the world (like in India), where the right wing is still up to their old tricks.

I live in the Anglosphere so I naturally am more familiar with it.

The left is working to rewind blasphemy laws around the world currently. Blasphemy laws enacted by the right. Blasphemy laws that only serve to persecute peaceful expression, and enshrine hate.

I 100% agree with the repeal of blasphemy laws and lese-majeste laws.

At least laws against hate speech come from the view that violent expression is the thing that should be curtailed, and hatred is not a thing to be encouraged. They may be wrong to go about it in the way they have, but I can hardly blame them after enduring millennia if right wing religious persecution enshrined in law.

No, hate speech laws do not come from the view that 'violent' expression should be curtailed. In a recent Australian case, a person was fined for 'misgendering' a trans person on social media. Misgendering may seem unkind to some, but it is not a 'violent expression'. If it's deliberately malicious, it might be described as 'name calling', but then that's the same thing blasphemy and lese-majeste laws are at heart. Using the power of the State to stop some people's feelings being hurt, and trampling over free speech to do so.

 

[KeepTalking]

I 100% agree with the repeal of blasphemy laws and lese-majeste laws.

At least laws against hate speech come from the view that violent expression is the thing that should be curtailed, and hatred is not a thing to be encouraged. They may be wrong to go about it in the way they have, but I can hardly blame them after enduring millennia if right wing religious persecution enshrined in law.

No, hate speech laws do not come from the view that 'violent' expression should be curtailed.

Bullshit. They come from the view that hatred causes violence, and giving voice to that hatred increases the likelihood that violence will result. One does not have to agree with that view to understand it.

In a recent Australian case, a person was fined for 'misgendering' a trans person on social media. Misgendering may seem unkind to some, but it is not a 'violent expression'. If it's deliberately malicious, it might be described as 'name calling', but then that's the same thing blasphemy and lese-majeste laws are at heart. Using the power of the State to stop some people's feelings being hurt, and trampling over free speech to do so.

Bullshit again. Name calling leads to dehumanization, which leads to violence. Blasphemy laws would be the exact opposite of hate speech laws. Blasphemy laws work to try make sure that everyone in society uses the same name calling to dehumanize those they hate, and ultimately use the power of the state to condone and commit violence against them.

 

[RVonse]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

In a politically, culturally, and sociay diverse country freedom of speech for all requires tolerance of that which we may despise. We atheists require our free speech regardless if it offends the religions, and vice versa.

In a diverse system we all have to tolerate that which makes us uncomfortable.

A polities said some were out to lynch him. Blacks took offense and he was attacked. I grew up with being lynched conversationally simply meant moil rule or somebody is out to get you. Protestors hung GWB in effigy outside his property.


Seems like everyday now someone is under attack for offending somebody. Is this a good thong or a bad thing?

Should people be free to be racist and express views, yes.

I vote no.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

What is the difference between right-wing intolerance and left-wing intolerance? Right-wing intolerance for things is enshrined in legislation and by laws. Left-wing intolerance for things is enshrined in public opinion.

One guy takes a knee during the national anthem and the right-wing shits it pants. I don't want to hear about how the right-wing cares about the sanctity of expression!

To be fair about it though, they were not shitting their pants over their expression. They were shitting their pants because they felt they were PAYING (in the price of admission) to see that expression they disagreed with. And yes there were some who just quietly stopped watching anymore games (the correct response) but there were many others who shit their pants over it (the incorrect response).

 

[laughing dog]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

In a politically, culturally, and sociay diverse country freedom of speech for all requires tolerance of that which we may despise. We atheists require our free speech regardless if it offends the religions, and vice versa.

In a diverse system we all have to tolerate that which makes us uncomfortable.

A polities said some were out to lynch him. Blacks took offense and he was attacked. I grew up with being lynched conversationally simply meant moil rule or somebody is out to get you. Protestors hung GWB in effigy outside his property.


Seems like everyday now someone is under attack for offending somebody. Is this a good thong or a bad thing?

Should people be free to be racist and express views, yes.

I vote no.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

What is the difference between right-wing intolerance and left-wing intolerance? Right-wing intolerance for things is enshrined in legislation and by laws. Left-wing intolerance for things is enshrined in public opinion.

One guy takes a knee during the national anthem and the right-wing shits it pants. I don't want to hear about how the right-wing cares about the sanctity of expression!

To be fair about it though, they were not shitting their pants over their expression. They were shitting their pants because they felt they were PAYING (in the price of admission) to see that expression they disagreed with. And yes there were some who just quietly stopped watching anymore games (the correct response) but there were many others who shit their pants over it (the incorrect response).

Nah, there were plenty of TV watchers (and non-watchers) pooping their pants, the internet and call-in radio shows.

 

[RVonse]

If one can believe the results to the OP poll it would appear most do not want to suppress offensive speech. Which happens to be a position I agree with.

But considering most here on this board are of a liberal and progressive ideology.....I am left to wonder how most of you were not offended by twitter and google for the censoring of Trump and his followers? It does not appear consistent to me.

 

[laughing dog]

So...what, exactly? I don't live in the entirety of recorded history. I live right now.

Then you should be more careful about your generalizations. Otherwise, your comments are open to the same rigorous standards of discussion that you demand of others.

No, hate speech laws do not come from the view that 'violent' expression should be curtailed. In a recent Australian case, a person was fined for 'misgendering' a trans person on social media. Misgendering may seem unkind to some, but it is not a 'violent expression'. If it's deliberately malicious, it might be described as 'name calling', but then that's the same thing blasphemy and lese-majeste laws are at heart. Using the power of the State to stop some people's feelings being hurt, and trampling over free speech to do so.

You are mistaken. What is at the heart of blasphemy and lese-majesty laws are throttling opponents of the powerful. Hate crime speech is an attempt to shield those who are not in power, because hate speech can lead to violence.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If one can believe the results to the OP poll it would appear most do not want to suppress offensive speech. Which happens to be a position I agree with.

But considering most here on this board are of a liberal and progressive ideology.....I am left to wonder how most of you were not offended by twitter and google for the censoring of Trump and his followers? It does not appear consistent to me.

Well, not many people are going to get upset at media companies censoring people who are actively promoting treason during a constitutional required transition period. I do wonder if it's a mistake to allow the current censoring of Trump now that the transition is over. However, twitter and google are private companies. They are not bound by the first amendment.

 

[TomC]

If one can believe the results to the OP poll it would appear most do not want to suppress offensive speech. Which happens to be a position I agree with.

But considering most here on this board are of a liberal and progressive ideology.....I am left to wonder how most of you were not offended by twitter and google for the censoring of Trump and his followers? It does not appear consistent to me.

There's plenty of irony to spread around.
Plenty of people seem to think that a baker who makes cakes shouldn't be allowed to choose who he bakes for. OTOH, people who think the bakery should be free to discriminate against trans folk get upset when other private companies refuse to do business with people advocating things the company doesn't like.

Funny how that works.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

So...what, exactly? I don't live in the entirety of recorded history. I live right now.

Then you should be more careful about your generalizations. Otherwise, your comments are open to the same rigorous standards of discussion that you demand of others.

No, hate speech laws do not come from the view that 'violent' expression should be curtailed. In a recent Australian case, a person was fined for 'misgendering' a trans person on social media. Misgendering may seem unkind to some, but it is not a 'violent expression'. If it's deliberately malicious, it might be described as 'name calling', but then that's the same thing blasphemy and lese-majeste laws are at heart. Using the power of the State to stop some people's feelings being hurt, and trampling over free speech to do so.

You are mistaken. What is at the heart of blasphemy and lese-majesty laws are throttling opponents of the powerful. Hate crime speech is an attempt to shield those who are not in power, because hate speech can lead to violence.

Who gets to decide who are the powerless and who the powerful? You’d really give the choice to the government?

 

[laughing dog]

Then you should be more careful about your generalizations. Otherwise, your comments are open to the same rigorous standards of discussion that you demand of others.

You are mistaken. What is at the heart of blasphemy and lese-majesty laws are throttling opponents of the powerful. Hate crime speech is an attempt to shield those who are not in power, because hate speech can lead to violence.

Who gets to decide who are the powerless and who the powerful? You’d really give the choice to the government?

I assume you are referring to hate speech laws. If the goal is to protect the powerless, someone(s) have to agree on who they are. "The government" in a democracy is elected to make such decisions as whether there should be hate speech laws and who they should protect. Have you been alive at all in the past 200 years ?

 

[KeepTalking]

If one can believe the results to the OP poll it would appear most do not want to suppress offensive speech. Which happens to be a position I agree with.

But considering most here on this board are of a liberal and progressive ideology.....I am left to wonder how most of you were not offended by twitter and google for the censoring of Trump and his followers? It does not appear consistent to me.

The right to free speech is the right to be free of the government suppressing your speech. What it does not give you the right to do is use the resources of a private entity to amplify your speech without the consent of that private entity. In other words, Twitter and Google are under no obligation to use their resources to amplify the speech of someone with whom they do not agree.

 

[TomC]

Then you should be more careful about your generalizations. Otherwise, your comments are open to the same rigorous standards of discussion that you demand of others.

You are mistaken. What is at the heart of blasphemy and lese-majesty laws are throttling opponents of the powerful. Hate crime speech is an attempt to shield those who are not in power, because hate speech can lead to violence.

Who gets to decide who are the powerless and who the powerful? You’d really give the choice to the government?

As opposed to who?
The screechiest extremists on the internet?
Tom

 

[Patooka]

If one can believe the results to the OP poll it would appear most do not want to suppress offensive speech. Which happens to be a position I agree with.

But considering most here on this board are of a liberal and progressive ideology.....I am left to wonder how most of you were not offended by twitter and google for the censoring of Trump and his followers? It does not appear consistent to me.

Because that wasn't what happened. This is like the fifth time this has been pointed out to you. I'll ask you yet again; do you think the owner of a bar is supressing free speech when they throw out a patron who consistently keeps screaming anti-semitic rants? If I take a shit in the middle of a supermarket, does that shop have no right to kick me out?

If I agree to Terms of Service and then consistently violate them, am I immune to consequences? Why is that censorship?

Maybe I am a naive dumb cunt, because I still live in hope one of these days you might answer.

 

[Metaphor]

Bullshit. They come from the view that hatred causes violence, and giving voice to that hatred increases the likelihood that violence will result. One does not have to agree with that view to understand it.

Hatred does not cause violence. I hate a lot of things but I've never been violent about it. But also, I don't increase my hate, or turn love or indifference to hate, because some other people name-call.

Bullshit again. Name calling leads to dehumanization, which leads to violence. Blasphemy laws would be the exact opposite of hate speech laws. Blasphemy laws work to try make sure that everyone in society uses the same name calling to dehumanize those they hate, and ultimately use the power of the state to condone and commit violence against them.

Blasphemy laws compel people not to 'mock' a religion (usually, a particular religion). They don't compel you to 'name call'.