Post: #26

Hate speech laws are sillytalk. There is absolutely no way you can regulate speech in an objective manner. What is this "may incite violence" bullshit?

What if I said "people with two legs can jump higher than people with just one leg"? Would this be hate speech because there is a group of amputees who happen to have mad hops and they got offended because of this? Would I be thrown in jail for saying this?

Everything worth saying is hate speech. Laws about hate speech must be thrown out as unconstitutional in the USA, but since Europe apparently doesn't believe in basic things like "the right to say whatever the fuck you want" they have these silly draconian laws.

How about punishing people who actually hurt other people. If there is some neo-Nazi running around Europe attacking Jews and Gypsies, arrest that motherfucker and throw his bitchass in jail. But if for some reason someone says "I don't like Gypsies", that is their right and no one should be able to prevent them from saying that.

Hate speech laws are such a slippery slope that I can't believe that they exist.

Oh yeah, and

Post: #27

(01-28-2015 11:18 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  Just because some American feminists are trying to put their agenda in it doesn't mean hate speech is created to serve SJWs. Hate speech is a European invention after WW2, for obvious reasons. Cause you don't have it nor need it in America doesn't mean it's bullshit. It serves a certain purpose.

No, hate speech may be a relatively new concept, but it predates WW2, and as an instrument of oppression has been around before SJWs even existed.

I would go one step further and narrow your definition to material that can be causally linked to violent, repressive actions against a target group of people.

Still, it's rather broad. Kaiser Wilhelm addressed the following to German troops departing for the Boxer Rebellion:

Quote:“Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German.”

Today, this could easily fall under the umbrella of hate speech. I'd say, though, that there is an added element of defamation involved in true hate speech.

The belief being flogged on this thread is that the concept of hate speech is an invention of the Left/SJWs to silence any idea that might run contrary to their worldview. This doesn't necessarily mean that they oppose speech that is hateful per se, merely that which they would suppress due to it infringing on their feeeeeewings.

To be fair, it's not as it the Left has a monopoly on totalitarianism and suppression of contrarian though. To those who would advocate unfettered, absolute freedom of speech, would you turn the other cheek to the publication of such material?



Der Stürmer pulled no punches in its virulent depictions of the Jewish people. It was a prime vehicle in the compliance or ignorance of the German people first towards increasing anti-Semitic policies, then with regards to the Holocaust itself. Would that not qualify as hate speech, and not mere propaganda?

While I would defend the right to freedom of speech, and the right to intolerance, I would in turn argue for appropriate discourse against material as inflammatory to the degree of Der Stürmer, especially if it were an instrument of state policy.

Post: #28

double post

Post: #29

(01-29-2015 11:41 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  To those who would advocate unfettered, absolute freedom of speech, would you turn the other cheek to the publication of such material?

Not sure what you mean by "turn the other cheek" but yes, inflammatory shit should still be published. Counter it with mockery, satire, or whatever.

Unless specific threats are being made against specific people, publish away.

And if anyone tries to violently silence the authors of controversial art, speech, or writings they should be shot in self-defense. Otherwise freedom of speech does not exist.

I googled Der Sturmer and came up with this recent blog post by a Jewish "libertarian" (yeah, sure) sympathizing with Muslims who shot up Charlie Hedbo. I thought it was interesting.

http://thejewishlibertarian.com/2015/01/...r-sturmer/

Quote:Now, what if, some time before Krystalnacht in the 1930’s, 2 pissed off Jews armed with rifles stormed the offices of Der Sturmer and just shot and killed the whole staff?

Personally, had I lived in the 1930’s, I would have been happy. And admit it, you would, too. I don’t know if I would have celebrated, but I would be at least relieved. I would be horrified at “freedom of speech” rallies in support of the surviving Der Sturmer staff, and I would be really freaked out at millions of copies of Der Sturmer being sold in the aftermath on a 1930’s Ebay. I would certainly not wear an “I am Der Sturmer” button on my shirt.

Many will say that the Der Sturmer/Charlie Hebdo analogy doesn’t hold. I say it does, and perfectly so.

I am not Charlie. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Europe has its own anti Muslim Krystalnacht fairly soon.

And once again, no, they should not have been killed, and the murderers should be punished. But I’m not one to mourn the murder of Julius Streicher.

Post: #30

Excellent thread topic. In the modern world either every thing is okay, or nothing is okay. That is my opinion. But I might be an idealist.

Pragmatic questions to ask however:

If you truly say something disgusting though, I mean against all good sense and morality, shouldn't you be punished in some way?

For example recently a Connecticut beer brand had Gandhi's image on their cans - a man who sacrificed immensely all his life, was against alcohol personally and in the society because it had ruined many families in a poor country. This even in my opinion is in bad, terrible taste. Should they be allowed to do this - certainly. Should they have actually done it - no. Now that they have, how does one punish them? Well, you let the market decide. People can petition, protest, and boycott their product. Sounds fine to me.

However, "let the market work" is not always a fair option. This is because when a motion is made, there are usually people supporting a certain point of view that have more of the power, support, and resources. In that case, they can not influence the long term outcomes using classical freedom of protest/freedom of speech laws.

It's interesting to think about this. If a kid is being bullied in school, getting punched by a big tough guy, he has the option of hitting back. In reality, is this going to change anything though? Should a teacher intervene?

Sometimes you see the opposite. A "tyranny of the minority" situation. Like Muslims in India. Or Israel anywhere in the west to a lesser extent.

Sometimes this allowed free speech leads to actual deaths. Muslims are allowed free speech in India for example. But many of them have been spouting extreme anti Hindu sentiment, to the point of causing real acts of terrorism. At what point is that okay? At what point is that punishable, if at all? Is it punishable only after a real terrorist plot has been devised?