Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
File under "Things that were already pretty obvious, but it's good to have concrete evidence..."

http://news.ku.edu/2017/05/01/research-shows-prejudice-not-principle-often-underpins-free-speech-defense-racist
Just leaving this story here to point out that, in addition to defending racists, free speech advocates also find themselves disproportionately defending perverts (convicted, alleged, or otherwise):

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/06/19/1954214
In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law that prevents sex offenders from posting on social media where children might be present, saying it "impermissibly restricts lawful speech."
If you're taking a principled stand, them's the breaks. The First Amendment isn't there to protect speech everybody likes.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
You can object however much you like. We've been over this in the past and my opinion is that your views go against freedom of speech. You somehow think that restricting speech does not violate free speech. We'll never agree so why bother going through this argument again?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You attack others and me being "Clearly not supporters of free speech[...]" and you expect that to pass without Objection?
It's a difference on a fundamental level (no pun intended but still chuckled at) Lev, myself and a few others (mostly Americans interestingly) believe that any restriction on speech makes it not free. You believe otherwise so what's the point?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
I posted a story a while back about a football fan getting arrested in Germany for calling a cop "dude". Didn't someone here (can't remember) defend that by saying that disrespect towards figures of authority should not be allowed? I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: it was Interrobang. Predictably. And everyone jumped on him for it. I agree with priz, this is a fundamental difference between wanting freedom and wanting government oppression so arguing it is kind of pointless.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
I sometimes wonder if "hate speech" law supporters would support an anti-hate law that applied to the 1st Amendment evenly. Hate speech isn't protected by free speech, hateful expression isn't protect by free expression, hateful press isn't protected by freedom of the press, and hateful religion is not protected by freedom of religion.

I wonder if they would begin to see the inherent flaws with such an idea.
 

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,145
[...] We'll never agree so why bother going through this argument again?
Just after you accuse me of dragging this discussion on ...

I posted a story a while back about a football fan getting arrested in Germany for calling a cop "dude". Didn't someone here (can't remember) defend that by saying that disrespect towards figures of authority should not be allowed? I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: it was Interrobang. Predictably. And everyone jumped on him for it. I agree with priz, this is a fundamental difference between wanting freedom and wanting government oppression so arguing it is kind of pointless.
You (again) completely misrepresent what I wrote in that discussion. I never wrote that the cop was right or that I think this sort of thing is a good thing. Either your reading comprehension is way off, or you just want to label me a certain way that suits your worldview.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You (again) completely misrepresent what I wrote in that discussion. I never wrote that the cop was right or that I think this sort of thing is a good thing. Either your reading comprehension is way off, or you just want to label me a certain way that suits your worldview.
That, right there, is the fundamental difference I was talking about. You are OK with speech policing, Lev and I are not.
 

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,145
That, right there, is the fundamental difference I was talking about. You are OK with speech policing, Lev and I are not.
That is not what I am arguing about. Yes, I see advantages in policing speech in certain scenarios and cases. That is a correct description on your part.
But I do not side with cops, politicians or other people trying to use this to forbid ideas or silence people. Exactly the contrary, in most of my related posts I was just explaining how the german law works and what the german courts decided, but my own opinion has always been to allow more free speech and only go after the most extreme cases (Isis recruiters trying to make people kill others - for example) and not police going after someone they don't like and maybe said a bad word towards them. Yet Lev accuses me of siding with people doing just that ... and this is what I am arguing about. Sure, we're not on the same page here and as I previously stated I respect your principled (idealistic) stand - but I think I've put a bit of an effort into explaining my views on the matter, the nuances that are there and thus I will not sit by idly as someone misrepresents my stance on the topic this way.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Not even fighting words/true threat or defamation?
Defamation is not a crime.

Threats run a fine line. Saying "LeVeL is so terrible that someone should kill him" is different from "I have a plan to kill LeVeL". Even "I'm going to kill LeVeL" would need to be proven as a legitimate threat and not just an exclamation. Basically your "victim" would have to be genuinely in fear, you'd need to have the ability and opportunity, etc - it's similar to when you're allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Not even fighting words/true threat or defamation?
Lev more or less addressed it. IIRC fighting words only come into play when there is an altercation, for example if you say something to me and I deck you in the face, when police decide whether to charge me with assault or not they will take into account what you said. Defamation is a purely civil offense and is basically down to the defamed party seeking damages.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
That is not what I am arguing about. Yes, I see advantages in policing speech in certain scenarios and cases. That is a correct description on your part.
But I do not side with cops, politicians or other people trying to use this to forbid ideas or silence people. Exactly the contrary, in most of my related posts I was just explaining how the german law works and what the german courts decided, but my own opinion has always been to allow more free speech and only go after the most extreme cases (Isis recruiters trying to make people kill others - for example) and not police going after someone they don't like and maybe said a bad word towards them. Yet Lev accuses me of siding with people doing just that ... and this is what I am arguing about. Sure, we're not on the same page here and as I previously stated I respect your principled (idealistic) stand - but I think I've put a bit of an effort into explaining my views on the matter, the nuances that are there and thus I will not sit by idly as someone misrepresents my stance on the topic this way.
I'd argue that your view is more idealistic as you trust the government not to overstep their boundaries.
 

Racin

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
81
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Car(s)
Peugeot
Lev more or less addressed it. IIRC fighting words only come into play when there is an altercation, for example if you say something to me and I deck you in the face, when police decide whether to charge me with assault or not they will take into account what you said. Defamation is a purely civil offense and is basically down to the defamed party seeking damages.
Defamation is a crime in some states.

But still, isn't it still policing free speech whether you're wrong or right?
 

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
I'd argue that your view is more idealistic as you trust the government not to overstep their boundaries.
It's not trust, but pragmatism. Words have power to inspire horrible things, so policing the most horrible of it is something of a necessary evil to avoid catastrophes. But this is not to mean the government is trusted; it must remain under watch.

What's that saying people like to repeat? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If I read you correctly, you view it as an absolute: must have absolute freedom and guard it constantly. Interrobang and I are just willing to move the doorstop off of the absolute because we don't accept the worst pitfalls that come with absolute freedom.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Defamation is a crime in some states.

But still, isn't it still policing free speech whether you're wrong or right?
Which states? I am not aware of any criminal penalties for defamation. It's not since it's civil. By that logic coffee is policed because some old lady successfully sued McDonald's for a coffee.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not trust, but pragmatism. Words have power to inspire horrible things, so policing the most horrible of it is something of a necessary evil to avoid catastrophes. But this is not to mean the government is trusted; it must remain under watch.

What's that saying people like to repeat? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If I read you correctly, you view it as an absolute: must have absolute freedom and guard it constantly. Interrobang and I are just willing to move the doorstop off of the absolute because we don't accept the worst pitfalls that come with absolute freedom.
Who decides what's dangerous? What if there was some sort of a widespread support against a certain idea? Perhaps spearheaded by a miserable hateful little man? I of course am talking about McCarthyism, remember House unamerican actions committee?
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
20,314
Location
Michigan USA
McDonald's serving a woman scalding hot coffee is an absurd analogy.

Besides, even in the good old U.S. of A., we do not have absolute freedom of speech. See yelling fire in a crowded theater as an example.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Top