Should Speech Deemd Offensive Be Supressed And Punished?

[Metaphor]

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.

I think my original comment stands. I did not make a claim about all of recorded history. Hell, I didn't even make a claim about the balance of speech suppression efforts in recent history. I just said hate speech laws come almost exclusively from the left, and they use the force of State.

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.

Hate speech is already violence, according to the 'progressive' left.

 

[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.

I think my original comment stands. I did not make a claim about all of recorded history. Hell, I didn't even make a claim about the balance of speech suppression efforts in recent history. I just said hate speech laws come almost exclusively from the left, and they use the force of State.

As a general statement, that is false.

Hate speech is already violence, according to the 'progressive' left.

I have learned to take your characterizations of the "left" with more than a grain of sale. Nonetheless, I used the term to refer to the more generally accepted meaning of physical violence.

 

[Metaphor]

As a general statement, that is false.

What are some examples of 'hate speech' laws coming from the right?

I have learned to take your characterizations of the "left" with more than a grain of sale. Nonetheless, I used the term to refer to the more generally accepted meaning of physical violence.

There are moral panics about lots of things causing violence. Video games in the 1990s, "video nasties" (horror films) in the 1980s, etc. I don't find the hypothesised link compelling. But even if I did, it is not a slam dunk argument. I do not believe people should be generally responsible for the actions other people take.

 

[laughing dog]

As a general statement, that is false.

What are some examples of 'hate speech' laws coming from the right?

How about  Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance in Poland that criminalizes any proclamation depicting Poles as collaborating with the Holocaust? Or flag burning laws?

There are moral panics about lots of things causing violence. Video games in the 1990s, "video nasties" (horror films) in the 1980s, etc. I don't find the hypothesised link compelling. But even if I did, it is not a slam dunk argument. I do not believe people should be generally responsible for the actions other people take.

The point was that there are other factors beyond "hurting someone's feelings" behind hate speech legislation proposals.

 

[Metaphor]

How about  Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance in Poland that criminalizes any proclamation depicting Poles as collaborating with the Holocaust? Or flag burning laws?

I don't know that I would call either of those 'hate speech' laws, but, in particular with the Holocaust, I don't know that the right is responsible for the various countries in Europe that have laws around it.

Flag burning prohibition laws are ridiculous and I agree that where they exist, they have been supported by the right, though I don't know that the right has brought this up in recent years. In Australia, flag burning is not illegal.

The point was that there are other factors beyond "hurting someone's feelings" behind hate speech legislation proposals.

I do not believe the existence of those factors is actually necessary for the people who want hate speech laws. If there were no demonstrated link, for example, between 'misgendering' and anti-trans violence, the same people who want misgendering to be punishable by the State would still want it punishable by the State.

In the UK, a woman was beaten up by a transwoman but lost State compensation for her injuries because the woman 'misgendered' her attacker in court. The state thought that a transwoman's hurt feelings were enough to remove compensation from the victim she beat up.

 

[laughing dog]

How about  Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance in Poland that criminalizes any proclamation depicting Poles as collaborating with the Holocaust? Or flag burning laws?

I don't know that I would call either of those 'hate speech' laws, but, in particular with the Holocaust, I don't know that the right is responsible for the various countries in Europe that have laws around it.

The  Law_and_Justice party in Poland which passed the law is a right wing party.

Flag burning prohibition laws are ridiculous and I agree that where they exist, they have been supported by the right, though I don't know that the right has brought this up in recent years. In Australia, flag burning is not illegal.

You asked for examples - you did not specify in recent years.

The point was that there are other factors beyond "hurting someone's feelings" behind hate speech legislation proposals.

I do not believe the existence of those factors is actually necessary for the people who want hate speech laws.

Whether it is necessary or not is not relevant to the point. For that matter, it is not necessary for people to want hate speech laws because they want to avoid hurt feelings.

If you want your critiques to be taken seriously, trivializing or mischaracterizing the contributing factors is not the way to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

The  Law_and_Justice party in Poland which passed the law is a right wing party.

Flag burning prohibition laws are ridiculous and I agree that where they exist, they have been supported by the right, though I don't know that the right has brought this up in recent years. In Australia, flag burning is not illegal.

You asked for examples - you did not specify in recent years.

The point was that there are other factors beyond "hurting someone's feelings" behind hate speech legislation proposals.

I do not believe the existence of those factors is actually necessary for the people who want hate speech laws.

Whether it is necessary or not is not relevant to the point. For that matter, it is not necessary for people to want hate speech laws because they want to avoid hurt feelings.

If you want your critiques to be taken seriously, trivializing or mischaracterizing the contributing factors is not the way to do so.

Whether hate speech laws are 'justifiable' to the people who want them is not my point. My point was the the left drives hate speech laws.

 

[laughing dog]

The  Law_and_Justice party in Poland which passed the law is a right wing party.
You asked for examples - you did not specify in recent years.

I do not believe the existence of those factors is actually necessary for the people who want hate speech laws.

Whether it is necessary or not is not relevant to the point. For that matter, it is not necessary for people to want hate speech laws because they want to avoid hurt feelings.

If you want your critiques to be taken seriously, trivializing or mischaracterizing the contributing factors is not the way to do so.

Whether hate speech laws are 'justifiable' to the people who want them is not my point. My point was the the left drives hate speech laws.

I did not use the term "justify". Your point that "the left" drives hate speech laws requires a very narrow reading of history and view of hate speech.

If you think hate speech is wrong, it should not matter who is driving it. But you feel the need to distort history on this issue for some obscure reason. Which makes your argument appear irrational rather than principle-based.

 

[Metaphor]

Whether hate speech laws are 'justifiable' to the people who want them is not my point. My point was the the left drives hate speech laws.

I did not use the term "justify". Your point that "the left" drives hate speech laws requires a very narrow reading of history and view of hate speech.

If you think hate speech is wrong, it should not matter who is driving it. But you feel the need to distort history on this issue for some obscure reason. Which makes your argument appear irrational rather than principle-based.

If you've seen me argue here or anywhere on a "State should suppress x speech" basis, you might say my attitude is not principled.

Blasphemy laws, lese-majeste laws, hate speech laws, even much of libel/slander laws I reject as undesirable. I know I'm in the minority but that does not make me unprincipled.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether hate speech laws are 'justifiable' to the people who want them is not my point. My point was the the left drives hate speech laws.

I did not use the term "justify". Your point that "the left" drives hate speech laws requires a very narrow reading of history and view of hate speech.

If you think hate speech is wrong, it should not matter who is driving it. But you feel the need to distort history on this issue for some obscure reason. Which makes your argument appear irrational rather than principle-based.

If you've seen me argue here or anywhere on a "State should suppress x speech" basis, you might say my attitude is not principled.

Blasphemy laws, lese-majeste laws, hate speech laws, even much of libel/slander laws I reject as undesirable. I know I'm in the minority but that does not make me unprincipled.

I did not say you were unprincipled. I just said your argument appear irrational rather than principle-based.

 

[Metaphor]

If you've seen me argue here or anywhere on a "State should suppress x speech" basis, you might say my attitude is not principled.

Blasphemy laws, lese-majeste laws, hate speech laws, even much of libel/slander laws I reject as undesirable. I know I'm in the minority but that does not make me unprincipled.

I did not say you were unprincipled. I just said your argument appear irrational rather than principle-based.

I made a simple statement of fact: that the left is behind hate speech laws. I did not say "therefore, hate speech laws ought be resisted, because I hate leftists".

Hate speech laws should be resisted because they are fucking stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

If you've seen me argue here or anywhere on a "State should suppress x speech" basis, you might say my attitude is not principled.

Blasphemy laws, lese-majeste laws, hate speech laws, even much of libel/slander laws I reject as undesirable. I know I'm in the minority but that does not make me unprincipled.

I did not say you were unprincipled. I just said your argument appear irrational rather than principle-based.

I made a simple statement of fact: that the left is behind hate speech laws.

It is not a fact in the normal sense of the word, since there significant hate speech laws that are not the result of "the left". When you persist in blatantly false claims of fact, it makes readers wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. When you wrongly blame a side for something (and persist, even when it is pointed out your are incorrect), it may make readers wonder what is really driving the argument. Even now you persist in repeating the canard that the left is behind hate speech laws. Since you also tend to blame "the left" and "the woke" for just about everything, it does give one pause.

Hate speech laws should be resisted because they are fucking stupid.

That is your handwaved opinion not a fact.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Twitter would have banned any other user for violating its TaC years before they finally did Trump's account and that wasn't until Trump posted a Tweet effectively giving a thumbs up *wink wink* to an on-going insurrection of his supporters. Up until then, Twitter had

The Tweets Twitter added messages to were to dispel the dangerous lies Trump was posting.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

So you don't agree with that view, for the record I did not say I agree with it either, but that is not relevant. Can you understand that there are those who have that view? If so, can you further understand that someone holding that view who endorses enacting hate speech laws is doing so from that viewpoint?

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.

That's great, and I applaud your emotional stability. Do you imagine that everyone else in the world has the same control over their emotions? I have known a good number of people in my time who have become violent as a result of name-calling.

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'.

Most blasphemy laws go quite a bit further than that. At the very least they require someone who has committed blasphemy to be called a "blasphemer".

 

[Gun Nut]

speech intended to deceive by public servants (or those seeking public office) should carry the death penalty under Treason.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.”

 

[Metaphor]

It is not a fact in the normal sense of the word, since there significant hate speech laws that are not the result of "the left".

No, there are not. You simply redefined blasphemy and flag burning and other laws prohibiting speech as 'hate speech' laws.

When you persist in blatantly false claims of fact, it makes readers wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. When you wrongly blame a side for something (and persist, even when it is pointed out your are incorrect), it may make readers wonder what is really driving the argument. Even now you persist in repeating the canard that the left is behind hate speech laws. Since you also tend to blame "the left" and "the woke" for just about everything, it does give one pause.

Hate speech laws are driven by the left, and your redefinition of other laws prohibiting speech as part of 'hate speech' are unconvincing.

If I'd meant "all laws prohibiting speech are driven by the left" I'd have said that.

That is your handwaved opinion not a fact.

Yes, it is my opinion that hate speech laws are fucking stupid.

 

[Metaphor]

So you don't agree with that view, for the record I did not say I agree with it either, but that is not relevant. Can you understand that there are those who have that view? If so, can you further understand that someone holding that view who endorses enacting hate speech laws is doing so from that viewpoint?

I understand there are people who may genuinely believe that "hate speech", when heard by others, leads to violence from some of those others towards the targets of the "hate speech". But I also believe that if there were no evidence of a link, the people who want hate speech laws would still want them.

That's great, and I applaud your emotional stability. Do you imagine that everyone else in the world has the same control over their emotions? I have known a good number of people in my time who have become violent as a result of name-calling.

I don't think I'm emotionally stable. I feel emotions, often strongly. I'm just not violent. I'm a very, very tall person with an intimidating appearance but if someone were describing me for a reality tv show they'd say 'he's a gentle giant'.

Some people might very well get violent at name-calling, but surely you mean they get violent if somebody calls them names.

Most blasphemy laws go quite a bit further than that. At the very least they require someone who has committed blasphemy to be called a "blasphemer".

Well, sure, but the idea of blasphemy laws isn't to allow people to call somebody a blasphemer. It's to punish somebody for saying something that hurts the majority's religious sensibilities. Or, (as is the case in a number of Islamic-majority countries), it's a tool to destroy any person accused of blasphemy, especially if they are an ethnic minority, a religious minority, or a rival.

I don't believe hurt religious sensibilities warrant blasphemy laws, and I don't believe hurt feelings warrant hate speech laws.

 

[laughing dog]

No, there are not. You simply redefined blasphemy and flag burning and other laws prohibiting speech as 'hate speech' laws.



Hate speech laws are driven by the left, and your redefinition of other laws prohibiting speech as part of 'hate speech' are unconvincing.

I did not redefine anything.
Your claim is a combination of ignorance and bias and nothing else.

Yes, it is my opinion that hate speech laws are fucking stupid.

Your biased and ignorant opinion is duly noted.

 

[KeepTalking]

I understand there are people who may genuinely believe that "hate speech", when heard by others, leads to violence from some of those others towards the targets of the "hate speech".

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, hate speech laws do not come from the view that 'violent' expression should be curtailed.

But I also believe that if there were no evidence of a link, the people who want hate speech laws would still want them.

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 don't think I'm emotionally stable. I feel emotions, often strongly. I'm just not violent. I'm a very, very tall person with an intimidating appearance but if someone were describing me for a reality tv show they'd say 'he's a gentle giant'.

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.

Some people might very well get violent at name-calling, but surely you mean they get violent if somebody calls them names.

You are correct.

Most blasphemy laws go quite a bit further than that. At the very least they require someone who has committed blasphemy to be called a "blasphemer".

Well, sure, but the idea of blasphemy laws isn't to allow people to call somebody a blasphemer. It's to punish somebody for saying something that hurts the majority's religious sensibilities. Or, (as is the case in a number of Islamic-majority countries), it's a tool to destroy any person accused of blasphemy, especially if they are an ethnic minority, a religious minority, or a rival.

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.

I don't believe hurt religious sensibilities warrant blasphemy laws, and I don't believe hurt feelings warrant hate speech laws.

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.