 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
and this will really quash the 'nazis will disappear if we don't let them speak' argument: |
You completely miss the point. Laws against homocide, and the death sentence in some jurisdictions, do not prevent murder.
What Canadians have done is decided that expression which is likely to lead to damage (fire in the theatre, or public expression that is likely to encourage an environment of racist violence) will be unlawful. I don't think anyone pretended that our laws by themselves will stamp out racial hate (or other bigotted views).
What we are doing is saying that it is not acceptable to us, that it is a crime, and that there will be some (minor) punishment.
Last edited by notyoueither on 14-07-2005 at 08:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
But if you like...
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's stupid. Hate speech is expression (by which I mean political or philosophical expression) by definition, pretty much. |
I take it that you place 'fire' in a theatre or 'I'll kill you!' in a bar to be something more than expression. It can lead to harm, so it should be judged differently, yes?
Now, if you believe that someone saying 'Jews are a disease, so and so was right to kill 6 million of them', or 'black men should not sleep with white women, when one does, he should be lynched', to be liable to contribute to as much harm, or more, than an alarmist in a theatre, or a belligerent drunk, then can't you see taking such people to task for it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Nope...don't really see any similarities in the two examples you posted, NYE.
"Fire!" in any crowded forum is likely to spark an immediate, instinctual response in people to get away from the danger.
This response, when it occurs en masse, can lead to injury as the exits are not wide enough to allow everyone to leave at the same time.
As to the "I'll kill you!" example in a bar...I've heard and had much worse said to me while visiting such places. My usual response is to take another drink and laugh.
I think that is the norm, also, else we would see a great many more fatalities and brawls in such places, because those kinds of comments are hardly rare.
We don't, signifying that the "potential danger" they cause is vastly overblown.
Nor does saying that the jews are a disease lead people to the same sort of instinctual drive that yelling out "fire!" in a crowded place does.
That phrase has been mentioned repeatedly here in this very thread, and yet, I've seen nothing on the news to indicate that poly's posters have suddenly become bloodthirsty anti-semites and gone on killing sprees.
Have you?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility... the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down."
-- Hitler
"People will always believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.'' - OSS report on Hitler's proganda techniques
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
Just as the law applies to ordinary people, it applies to politicians if not more. It makes it far more difficult for politicians to tell the big lie against particular groups of people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't have to read your earlier posts.
You're wrong, because in my mind allowing speech of the kind I just gave you an example of is more detrimental to society than is forbidding it. |
Atheists shouldn't be allowed to spread their words - the mere proposal that one should doubt God will inevitably lead to some Good Christians doubting their Lord and going to Hell. And nonconformance to the majority's religious beliefs is very detrimental to society, in my mind.
quote:
Speech which specifically condones violence against groups or individuals and is liable to lead to such violence is not simply speech, but rises to the level of an action. |
Actually, action on that speech is what rises to the level of action.
What about the speech "we ought to jail/execute people who commit fraud"?
OMG VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS!!!!
The action is what is legislated, not the speech.
quote:
Which is, of course, why it is context-specific. Yelling "fire" at the theater is prohibited. Yelling "fire" at the beach is not. |
As I said, I don't care. In my mind, that's not expression and I'm not arguing about it.
quote:
However, any public utterance of the kind I gave is liable to lead to violence |
Not if there are police around to prevent said violence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is your counterexample?
Thank you for proving my point. There are unprovable statements in any moral philosophy. I demonstrated that your "principle" allows speech which I (and I think most other reasonable people) find too inflammatory and directly liable to cause violence to be protected. |
Actually, it shows how hollow your case is.
Throughout any era, the same argument - that some speech will convince people of some truth, and therefore they will believe/do something bad, and this is harmful, therefore the speech should be prohibited - to try and prevent every advance towards political and social justice in history.
quote:
I don't have to prove that your statement is morally absurd; it just is. |
I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you just are.
quote:
Wrong. The legal principle is that words can constitute action in this context. |
And after at least three posts specifically denying it, do you think I agree with the legal principle? If I did, would I be arguing?
quote:
Pardon me. Please substitute the words "illegal violence" for each time I said violence. I thought that was clear to even the dullest mind. |
It's not legal until the law against fraud is passed. So prior to a law against X that results in imprisonment/execution, speech supporting the law should be banned.
quote:
As I said, I don't care. In my mind, that's not expression and I'm not arguing about it. |
quote:
Thanks for completely missing the point. The example was there to demonstrate the fact that the speech has different likely effects in different situations, thus what is legislated is the inherent action in the speech, not the speech itself. |
Thanks for missing the point that I don't have a problem with this logic when we aren't talking about expression (though I don't agree that there is an "inherent action" in the speech).
quote:
However, any public utterance of the kind I gave is liable to lead to violence |
quote:
I'm glad they've prevented it so well that no abortion doctor has ever been murdered for being an abortion doctor. |
Better the police occasionally fail than ideas be suppressed in the name of safety.
quote:
This is so easy it's almost like arguing with Ben |
Only in your own mind.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-07-2005 07:53
|