• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Tell an offensive joke, go to jail

How bizarre that on an atheist/agnostic board there are posters who excuse if not accept government sanction of persons for "offensive" speech. LOL. Complete lack of self awareness. Good thing this Nazi got arrested for being offensive.

Lenny_Bruce_arrest.jpg
 
I find the judge's ruling offensive, as it is an attack on free speech. Does that mean we can send him to prison too?
 
There's something quite bizarre about all these American free speech advocates taking the absolutist approach in defence of their belief.

Everything has limits. All laws have exceptions. All absolute positions are wrong to some degree*.

Government sanction of speech is acceptable in very few circumstances. But 'very few' is not equal to 'zero', and that approximation is only good enough for the hard of thinking - people who can't cope unless all things are proscribed by inviolable rules.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is no more suitable as a source of absolutist dogma than is the Bible or Quran.

Governments shouldn't censure nor censor the speech of their citizens; except in those very rare cases when they should.








*Yes, I know. Think about it.
 
I wonder when discussions like this will be pulled by youtube or a national government

 
Laws that prohibit speech that incites violence and hatred is enough. This so-called joke contains neither.

On the other hand when ostensible jokes slope off into dog-whistling constitute problems. There is no clear, unambiguous line between legal and illegal speech, but some legislation is clearly unacceptable to me, such as the criminalisation of holocaust denial, and laws that makes speech a crime on the grounds that someone feels offended.

I am torn between the "First they came for..." danger and the danger of unlimited toleration. We are in constant danger of being wrecked either by Scylla or Charybdis.

fuseli_ulysse.jpg
 
bilby said:
There's something quite bizarre about all these American free speech advocates taking the absolutist approach in defence of their belief.

Everything has limits. All laws have exceptions. All absolute positions are wrong to some degree*.

Government sanction of speech is acceptable in very few circumstances. But 'very few' is not equal to 'zero', and that approximation is only good enough for the hard of thinking - people who can't cope unless all things are proscribed by inviolable rules.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is no more suitable as a source of absolutist dogma than is the Bible or Quran.

Governments shouldn't censure nor censor the speech of their citizens; except in those very rare cases when they should.








*Yes, I know. Think about it.
Click to expand...

A) "Congress shall make no law" is pretty absolute. If you would like to describe what great harms we've suffered by having fairly literal interpretation of that these past 200+ years feel free. In my view the relaxations of the absolute that were later reversed have been worse.

2) We're talking about a dog video here. One needn't be "absolute" to consider this free speech. One need only not be a fascist twat.
 
bilby said:
There's something quite bizarre about all these American free speech advocates taking the absolutist approach in defence of their belief.

Everything has limits. All laws have exceptions. All absolute positions are wrong to some degree*.

Government sanction of speech is acceptable in very few circumstances. But 'very few' is not equal to 'zero', and that approximation is only good enough for the hard of thinking - people who can't cope unless all things are proscribed by inviolable rules.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is no more suitable as a source of absolutist dogma than is the Bible or Quran.

Governments shouldn't censure nor censor the speech of their citizens; except in those very rare cases when they should.








*Yes, I know. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Isn't the idea that the public can moderate itself with regards to what they find acceptable in collective such that judicial intervention shouldn't really be necessary for things like this? Are we really going to pretend that putting him into prison is a reasonable reaction if absolutely nothing else? Do they not have communal service in the UK Bilby or are we dispensing with the notion that punishments should fit the (victim-less) crime?
 
bilby said:
There's something quite bizarre about all these American free speech advocates taking the absolutist approach in defence of their belief.

Everything has limits. All laws have exceptions. All absolute positions are wrong to some degree*.

Government sanction of speech is acceptable in very few circumstances. But 'very few' is not equal to 'zero', and that approximation is only good enough for the hard of thinking - people who can't cope unless all things are proscribed by inviolable rules.
Click to expand...

The "very few" exceptions are only acceptable when the speech is directly tied to criminal actions or can be definitively determined to be an attempt to cause others physical harm. The inherently vague, subjective, and unverifiable nature of the psychological state of being "offended" makes it inherently corruptible and likely to be abused as the criteria for any criminal code, as every case of a government having such laws in history has proven. That is why the very few exceptions to restricting speech (the ultimate source of all human rights and societal progress) must always be based in clear deliberate connections to objective physical harm.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is no more suitable as a source of absolutist dogma than is the Bible or Quran.
Click to expand...

It isn't about the Constitution or Bill of Rights. They only have value because they protect things like speech. IT is about the fundamental importance of protecting speech from coercion because this is the root of all rights, and all moral, political, and scientific progress, which are far more important than whether some people feel offended by what is said. Only when the speech has direct causal effect in bringing about physical consequences more important or equal to basic human rights (e.g., getting someone killed) is there justification in punishing that speech.
 
Hermit said:
Laws that prohibit speech that incites violence and hatred is enough. This so-called joke contains neither.

On the other hand when ostensible jokes slope off into dog-whistling constitute problems. There is no clear, unambiguous line between legal and illegal speech, but some legislation is clearly unacceptable to me, such as the criminalisation of holocaust denial, and laws that makes speech a crime on the grounds that someone feels offended.

I am torn between the "First they came for..." danger and the danger of unlimited toleration. We are in constant danger of being wrecked either by Scylla or Charybdis.
Click to expand...

The odds that the intolerant will seize control via criminalization of speech is infinitely greater than the odds they will seize control via being allowing to speak intolerant ideas. Every society ruled by the intolerant has used speech restrictions to do so. Never have the intolerant been able to gain and maintain any real control via being permitted to speak their views. And no, they do not have control of society now. Temporarily holding elected positions because most people who were opposed to them didn't bother to show up to prevent it is not anything close to actual control over society.

Also, not criminalizing a speech act does not at all mean that society must be tolerant of that speech. It simply means not using the method of physical coercion (which the basis of all criminal law) to counter/reduce/eliminate the speech. Others are free to and should counter intolerant speech with speech designed to undermine/minimize/eliminate any potential impact that intolerant speech has.
 
There is a gray scale spectrum for sure. If he had only had the dog "salute" at Seig Heil he would not have had a legal problem. But if he said "Gas the Kikes, race war now" then some of his current defenders would back away.

Now this is well executed race comedy

 
Here's another one that demonstrates they aren't real god about the whole free speech thing in the UK:

Lauren Southern said the Home Office permanently banned her because she had been ‘caught distributing racist leaflets in Luton town centre’.

Canadian Southern was filmed handing out racist material which said ‘Allah is a gay God’ and ‘Allah is trans’ in Luton earlier this year. She described the stunt as a ‘social experiment’ but police broke it up after getting complaints from the public, saying it could lead to violence. They also warned it could create a public order offence and that if she didn’t stop she could be arrested.

While she was not arrested during the stunt in February, Southern was detained at Calais when she tried to re-enter the UK on March 13. She was held under the Terrorism Act and banned from entering because her actions presented ‘a threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy of the United Kingdom’.
Click to expand...

Calling someone's speech a "threat to the public policy of the United Kingdom" sounds pretty Orwellian.

Also, not sure what's "racist" about saying "Allah is gay". I didn't realize Allah was a race, or that gay was officially a bad thing in the UK.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/25/far-r...s-lifetime-ban-coming-uk-7415320/?ito=cbshare
 
dismal said:
Here's another one that demonstrates they aren't real god about the whole free speech thing in the UK:

Lauren Southern said the Home Office permanently banned her because she had been ‘caught distributing racist leaflets in Luton town centre’.

Canadian Southern was filmed handing out racist material which said ‘Allah is a gay God’ and ‘Allah is trans’ in Luton earlier this year. She described the stunt as a ‘social experiment’ but police broke it up after getting complaints from the public, saying it could lead to violence. They also warned it could create a public order offence and that if she didn’t stop she could be arrested.

While she was not arrested during the stunt in February, Southern was detained at Calais when she tried to re-enter the UK on March 13. She was held under the Terrorism Act and banned from entering because her actions presented ‘a threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy of the United Kingdom’.
Click to expand...

Calling someone's speech a "threat to the public policy of the United Kingdom" sounds pretty Orwellian.

Also, not sure what's "racist" about saying "Allah is gay". I didn't realize Allah was a race, or that gay was officially a bad thing in the UK.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/25/far-r...s-lifetime-ban-coming-uk-7415320/?ito=cbshare
Click to expand...

Seems to have been calculated to offend either Muslims or LGBTQ Community and to show the conflict between them. She also went to one of the Women's Marches and asked people what do they back, Feminism or Islam, with the intent of pointing out what she sees an obvious conflict between the two. I guess the argument is that she is attempting to pit these interests against each other and cause conflict, so she's a "threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy" which is to uphold cognitive dissonance?
 
Well, she's definitely trying to be provocative but that's one of the main things free speech rights are supposed to protect.

The only wrinkle here is I'm not sure, even in the US, a foreigner can't be barred entry because of their speech. I believe courts have upheld these sorts of government actions. There is no right to come into the US.

What's to me disturbing is the reasoning, and the use of "Terorism" laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom