Should Speech Deemd Offensive Be Supressed And Punished?

[laughing dog]

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.

Regardless of your alleged "care" in word choice, it is simply untrue that hate speech laws are only driven by the left.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Regardless of your alleged "care" in word choice, it is simply untrue that hate speech laws are only driven by the left.

I mean shit, wasn't a law brought in the last 60 days to make insulting officers a crime?

 

[laughing dog]

Regardless of your alleged "care" in word choice, it is simply untrue that hate speech laws are only driven by the left.

I mean shit, wasn't a law brought in the last 60 days to make insulting officers a crime?

Yeah, but since it wasn't covered by Fox News or The Daily Mail, it did not happen.

 

[Metaphor]

Regardless of your alleged "care" in word choice, it is simply untrue that hate speech laws are only driven by the left.

I mean shit, wasn't a law brought in the last 60 days to make insulting officers a crime?

Since Jarhyn wasn't kind enough to provide a link to this vague assertion, I did some searching.

I believe he might be referring to a Bill in Kentucky (covered by Fox News, in fact, laughing dog) passed by a Republican senate. If this becomes law, it would indeed be an example of the right driving a hate speech law.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Regardless of your alleged "care" in word choice, it is simply untrue that hate speech laws are only driven by the left.

I mean shit, wasn't a law brought in the last 60 days to make insulting officers a crime?

Since Jarhyn wasn't kind enough to provide a link to this vague assertion, I did some searching.

I believe he might be referring to a Bill in Kentucky (covered by Fox News, in fact, laughing dog) passed by a Republican senate. If this becomes law, it would indeed be an example of the right driving a hate speech law.

Is it a hate speech law or an authority worship law? Seems more the latter to me.

 

[Metaphor]

Since Jarhyn wasn't kind enough to provide a link to this vague assertion, I did some searching.

I believe he might be referring to a Bill in Kentucky (covered by Fox News, in fact, laughing dog) passed by a Republican senate. If this becomes law, it would indeed be an example of the right driving a hate speech law.

Is it a hate speech law or an authority worship law? Seems more the latter to me.

Well, part of the link says:

The bill kept language making a person guilty of disorderly conduct -- a Class B misdemeanor -- if they accost, insult, taunt, or challenge "a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."

Leaving aside the 'other physical contact' (I have no problem banning physical contact), this particular bill reads much like hate speech laws typically driven by the left. For example, in Australia, the Racial Discrimination Act prohibits speech that would "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race or ethnicity. So I'm willing to call it a hate speech bill, though whether this passes into law remains to be seen (and it might be unConstitutional anyway).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socially punished? Like if someone makes a Nazi symbol in public, you punch them?

 

[Jarhyn]

Since Jarhyn wasn't kind enough to provide a link to this vague assertion, I did some searching.

I believe he might be referring to a Bill in Kentucky (covered by Fox News, in fact, laughing dog) passed by a Republican senate. If this becomes law, it would indeed be an example of the right driving a hate speech law.

Is it a hate speech law or an authority worship law? Seems more the latter to me.

I would personally liken it to a blasphemy law. Either way it's the right passing a law restricting offensove speech so I think it's pretty valid as a grievance no matter which particular classifier of "odious law banning mere derision with up to deadly force."

None of it is OK. And I'm not surprised Metaphor wasn't aware, despite there being a thread about it. He has a pattern and "Police Overreach" doesn't fit the bill.

I already stated what I think of offensive speech and suppression of it.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Just because you chose your words carefully to score semantic points, does not make your use of them correct. Then again, perhaps you can explain the relevance of your semantic quibble.

What is it about left and right wing support for hate speech laws that allows you to say that the hate speech laws are driven by the left, but not the right?

 

[KeepTalking]

Regardless of your alleged "care" in word choice, it is simply untrue that hate speech laws are only driven by the left.

I mean shit, wasn't a law brought in the last 60 days to make insulting officers a crime?

Since Jarhyn wasn't kind enough to provide a link to this vague assertion, I did some searching.

I believe he might be referring to a Bill in Kentucky (covered by Fox News, in fact, laughing dog) passed by a Republican senate. If this becomes law, it would indeed be an example of the right driving a hate speech law.

You are veering more heavily into arguing semantics with each post, so we should probably nail you down on what you mean by "driving" and "driven", as it seems to be a non-standard definition. I was operating under the assumption that you meant "exerting pressure or influencing" and "motivated" for those words respectively. You seem to think that "driving" should be read as "enacted into law", and that does not seem to fit any definition of the word I can find.

 

[Metaphor]

Just because you chose your words carefully to score semantic points,

I don't choose words carefully to score semantic points. I choose them carefully because my ideological opponents on this board will read against the text of whatever I've written. They will take a stray adjective or conjunction to say "see! this is what you really meant" when everybody knows what I really meant.

does not make your use of them correct. Then again, perhaps you can explain the relevance of your semantic quibble.

What is it about left and right wing support for hate speech laws that allows you to say that the hate speech laws are driven by the left, but not the right?

I really have already explained more than once.

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. That means: left-leaning legislators introduce them, left-leaning legislators pass them into law, and left-leaning people defend them if they become controversial. For example, a few years ago in Australia, there was a kerfuffle over section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. The section reads:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

The Act itself was passed by Australia's major left-leaning party (under Whitlam in 1975) and provision 18c above was added in 1995 by the same party (under Keating).

The right-leaning major party in Australia (the Liberals) tried to strike the words "offend" and "insult" from 18c, and they were not successful. (Getting rid of the entire section 18c itself was a non-starter option).

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't choose words carefully to score semantic points. I choose them carefully because my ideological opponents on this board will read against the text of whatever I've written. They will take a stray adjective or conjunction to say "see! this is what you really meant" when everybody knows what I really meant.




I really have already explained more than once.

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. That means: left-leaning legislators introduce them, left-leaning legislators pass them into law, and left-leaning people defend them if they become controversial.

Even though that is not any normal definition of "driven", right-leaning legislators do the same thing. Just because the very recent legislation from the right has not been enacted into law yet, does not mean that it is any less driven by the right. Here I use the common definition of "driven" that means motivated.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't choose words carefully to score semantic points. I choose them carefully because my ideological opponents on this board will read against the text of whatever I've written. They will take a stray adjective or conjunction to say "see! this is what you really meant" when everybody knows what I really meant.




I really have already explained more than once.

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. That means: left-leaning legislators introduce them, left-leaning legislators pass them into law, and left-leaning people defend them if they become controversial.

Even though that is not any normal definition of "driven", right-leaning legislators do the same thing. Just because the very recent legislation from the right has not been enacted into law yet, does not mean that it is any less driven by the right. Here I use the common definition of "driven" that means motivated.

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. But I also do not think that an example of someone on the right doing something that is more commonly and successfully done by the left would make false the statement that hate speech laws are driven by the left. The majority, I would say the vast majority, of such laws are driven by the left.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't choose words carefully to score semantic points. I choose them carefully because my ideological opponents on this board will read against the text of whatever I've written. They will take a stray adjective or conjunction to say "see! this is what you really meant" when everybody knows what I really meant.




I really have already explained more than once.

Hate speech laws are driven by the left. That means: left-leaning legislators introduce them, left-leaning legislators pass them into law, and left-leaning people defend them if they become controversial.

Even though that is not any normal definition of "driven", right-leaning legislators do the same thing. Just because the very recent legislation from the right has not been enacted into law yet, does not mean that it is any less driven by the right. Here I use the common definition of "driven" that means motivated.

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. But I also do not think that an example of someone on the right doing something that is more commonly and successfully done by the left would make false the statement that hate speech laws are driven by the left. The majority, I would say the vast majority, of such laws are driven by the left.

Given that, would you now also say that "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

 

[Metaphor]

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. But I also do not think that an example of someone on the right doing something that is more commonly and successfully done by the left would make false the statement that hate speech laws are driven by the left. The majority, I would say the vast majority, of such laws are driven by the left.

Given that, would you now also say that "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

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. But I also do not think that an example of someone on the right doing something that is more commonly and successfully done by the left would make false the statement that hate speech laws are driven by the left. The majority, I would say the vast majority, of such laws are driven by the left.

Given that, would you now also say that "Hate speech laws are driven by both sides of the political divide"?

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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.

It's not even that "both sides do it". I don't see the left "doing it" and I would shout down anyone on the left calling for it. This is just the right conflating hate-action laws with hate-speech laws so that they can hand-wave away the times they actually pass bad laws.

It's the same as the voter/election conflation in discussing election fraud. It's a bait and switch.

 

[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.

 

[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?