 |
| |
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Your argument is like saying that if we have speed limits then the government will ban driving.
The issue is the law against hate speech, not some imaginary draconian propaganda. |
1st off- this law would set a judicial precedent so whereas it is completely ludicrous to ban speech against the government today- it would be very easy in the future.
Therefore, it's not a red herring. The situation is much like laws against gay marriage... many people who advocate those also advocate banning sodomy- and they use many of the same arguments for both. If you illegitimize one, the next can and will in many cases follow.
--
And finally- 'hate speech'... hmm... I suppose that would mean that when the government of the USA sponsored 'hate' against 'japanese american 'spies'' that they would have had to prosecute themselves for attempting to 'protect' the country. I'm CERTAIN that the government would apply such a law unbiased... It's not like they would favor themselves whenever a 'crisis' emerges.
---
As for Canada's protection of speech in literature... how do you define literature... is a 'fictional' book like Brave New World a commentary on human existence- is Alice in Wonderland spoofing British members of Parliament- could someone publish a book condemning blacks and state that it's literature?
No... they couldn't stop that. Therefore, that law is just bizarre- it makes it harder to spread hate speech, but hate speech is spread nonetheless.
---
quote:
Saying "I hate Jane" is not hate speech, just as saying "I hate the US" is not hate speech because neither incite violence against the object in question. |
If that's not hate speech, then I don't see how- "and we should defend ourselves against americans in any way possible." is any more hate speech... frankly it seems defensive and not an attack on anyone.
---
The trade offs in this situation are quite apparent:
Make Hate Speech Illegal and have a chilling effect on what people say- You could be sued for making ethnic jokes IN JEST- when you don't want to hurt ANYONE... (and frankly, just limiting it to 'public figures, wouldn't solve the problem...because) old TV programs made in an intolerant age would be banned- because they would be commentary instead of literature.
In addition what I said earlier bears repeating:
quote:
I mean (if you ban hate speech), then people can read things and come to their own conclusions.
It's not as if they are not going to read the bible and come to their own conclusions that say, Jews are evil because they 'killed Jesus.'
I mean- that's not happened before, has it?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
Of course it's a politically significant opinion. It's a statement of belief about facts that can be translated into public policy.
Thank you for providing a clear litmus test, GePap. |
That's not at all clear.Now, you could claim that making sexually obscene and lewd comments can also be a form of political statement that could lead to some sort of public policy (like the annulment of a variety of laws concerning certain sexual behaviors), yet that does not stop these comments from being banned because their supposed harm outweights any theoritical political statement.
Lets take the man's statement that "Jews are a disease". What possible public policy could stem from this, save for the extermination or expulsion of all Jews and the denial of their rights ? After all, they are not human, but a disease, deserving no rights and in fact a clear and present danger to the body politic.
So then we could ask further- is speech meant to support a public policy that clashes entirely with the liberal democratic values of the country really politically valid? After all, the ennaction of any policy that would logically stem from such a statement would be far more injurious to the continuation of any democratic liberal regime than the action of banning such speech.
More importantly, given the nature of such a polcy, it could only possibly be cohersive and violent.
You can ask if this is only a matter of degree. After all, there is a difference in substance between just saying "Jews are a disease" and advocating a political plan, say, National Socialism, which as part of a greater plan would entail the end of civil and legal rights for minorities such as the Jews.
So in this case the question is, to what degree does a liberal democratic society allow for political speech calling for actions in complete violation of the spirit of such a system?
As of yet, I would assume all liberal democratic states have such laws on the books, or have at some point or another (for example, the laws against "unamerican behavior").
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
|
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Lets take the man's statement that "Jews are a disease". What possible public policy could stem from this, save for the extermination or expulsion of all Jews and the denial of their rights ? After all, they are not human, but a disease, deserving no rights and in fact a clear and present danger to the body politic.
So then we could ask further- is speech meant to support a public policy that clashes entirely with the liberal democratic values of the country really politically valid? After all, the ennaction of any policy that would logically stem from such a statement would be far more injurious to the continuation of any democratic liberal regime than the action of banning such speech.
More importantly, given the nature of such a polcy, it could only possibly be cohersive and violent.
You can ask if this is only a matter of degree. After all, there is a difference in substance between just saying "Jews are a disease" and advocating a political plan, say, National Socialism, which as part of a greater plan would entail the end of civil and legal rights for minorities such as the Jews. |
Which is why democracies exist.
However, democracies, while allowing that party to exist would never allow it to do the following:
1.) Actually deprive the group of rights.
2.) Seize power by combining the office of President+Prime Minister as hitler was able to.
since doing either option would be against the constitution.
---
But merely existing would not be the crime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Consider an Islamic cleric who preaches day after day that the West is evil, that the United States is Satan, etc.
If the cleric never advocates violences, but simply talks about how the West is out to destroy Islam, etc, should the cleric be allowed to continue? |
Of course, the US has a long tradition of fire-breathing preachers skewering the government and America (meaning the sinners). But John Brown had to try and seize an armory before the government reacted.
quote:
Yes. The government can watch what he is doing and can monitor his contacts and his associations. Until he actually acts on what he says, he's immune.
To do otherwise would 'chill' conversation and thought |
Huh? If people learn they are going to be "watched" if they upset the bureaucrats and politicians with their opinions, wouldn't that chill political expression?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
The point, gentlemen, is that everybody who is so against this fellow's position and opinion, is tripping all overthemselves to say how tolerant they are, while displaying gross INTOLERENCE for this individual's position (as evidenced by the burning desire to shut him up). Thus, Dark Cloud's statement. |
Funny that you mention burning.
It is our extention of the yelling fire in a crowded theatre principle.
Nobody, anywhere, has unfettered right to say anything and everything they like.
We may differ on where to draw the line, but we all have these lines.
Last edited by notyoueither on 12-07-2005 at 08:52
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2005 04:22
|