 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
How do we define which actions are tolerable and which not?
|
Now let me be clear, I'm not defending those who commit hateful acts, just trying to figure out what to do about what they say. This would include your example of murderers. We should punish the deed, but should we punish the word?
A direct threat, such as, "We will do so and so to you if you do this," should be restricted. What about something along the lines that the holocaust never happened? What do we say then?
Part of the problem with constituting hate laws is who gets to decide what is hateful speech and what is not. Oftentimes, this becomes synonymous with PC, in that you should not express an opinion if people may take offense.
This is the problem that I see in Canada right now, that by taking the step to protect people from hate, we also stifle legitimate voices trying to change the status quo.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000 time: 06:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
Now let me be clear, I'm not defending those who commit hateful acts, just trying to figure out what to do about what they say. This would include your example of murderers. We should punish the deed, but should we punish the word? |
No, not in my opinion (as long it isnīt directly responsible for violence, which is indeed a difficult thing to decide). And Iīd never accuse you of defending hateful acts 
But I have the very same problem like you - just from the opposite direction. Therefore I try to find out if/when/where it is acceptable in a free society to have certain restrictions.
quote:
A direct threat, such as, "We will do so and so to you if you do this," should be restricted. What about something along the lines that the holocaust never happened? What do we say then? |
Exactly my problem
quote: Part of the problem with constituting hate laws is who gets to decide what is hateful speech and what is not. Oftentimes, this becomes synonymous with PC, in that you should not express an opinion if people may take offense.
This is the problem that I see in Canada right now, that by taking the step to protect people from hate, we also stifle legitimate voices trying to change the status quo. |
As said, I see the same problems. However, while I agree is has disadvantages to limit rights, I also think it has disadvantages to do it not in certain cases.
For instance if one doesnīt act against those who incite violence, and this violence causes victims, people can argue that it wasnīt done enough to prevent this. And at a certain scale of violence you canīt speak of a free society anymore. But then we are again at our dilemma with the definition of incitement. Even if I share this dilemma with you, I think such restrictions can be done.
The other question you mentioned (if there should be a protection from hatespeech) is hard for me to decide too. Here the definition becomes even more difficult. What kind of hate should be restricted, and why? Doesnīt any restriction here lead to absurd situations - eg. if we restrict something like "I hate Jews!" why not restrict the line "I hate my neighbour!" too?
Iīm not sure (would have to look it up), but I think it isnīt allowed in Germany to deny eg. the Holocaust. From the arguments in this thread, I would tend to the position that it is not wise to restrict something like this, esp. not when you have already a stable democracy. However when you donīt restrict it, I can see problems too. Letīs say you have a history teacher who teaches over years in his classes that the Holocaust was just a lie - would that be acceptable? If not, on what base should we prevent that something like this happens, if it canīt be restricted?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:28
|
|
DarthVeda:
or by the vote...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:28
|
|
quote: That can be the case even with freedom of speech granted. |
What could be the case even with freedom of speech granted? The gov't/media/etc. scaremongering people into changing the "societal consensus" into something bad? Well, yes, that's the point. Freedom of speech is designed to prevent that from undermining the legality of unpopular political opinions.
quote: I could also say "If you donīt have full freedom (to do anything you want, even kill others) you donīt have freedom at all" - but that seems nonsense to me
Because if you donīt want that others violate your rights you have to accept limits for yourself. The rest is a question of the definition of those limits. |
That's not an appropriate analogy. Freedom of speech is specifically designed to prevent the state from censoring unpopular political opinons. That's the very point of freedom of speech. If the legality of speech is tied to the societal consensus over legitimate political opinions, it is not truly free.
quote: Hm, in Germany today you can legally strike, and no industrialist can hinder you without breaking the law. Iīm not responsible for stupidities of the past, esp. when in Germany the real democratic process began only after WWII (with the short intermezzzo of Weimar - but they could strike there too) |
Yes, and I don't want to repeat the stupidities of the past.
quote: If your example says the industrialists could legally slaughter strikers, I would say this is a system of terror, and then you can resist. Edit: Oh, and of course one can always act in self-defense. That doesnīt mean however, that you should lynch those industrialists if there are other ways. |
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "legally," but yes 100 years ago, industrialists could kill strikers with impunity in the US, and in most other places.
Anyways, so you're saying that a party demanding and practicing violence outside any existing law should be prohibited - unless you say otherwise? Very interesting position you have there. So what will us plebes do if you're not around to pronounce a state "a system of terror?" 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Imran: Look at Panags flag.
Nuff said.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000 time: 07:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote: nah , he never was a genius , ..... |
Yeah he was. Utter brilliant. How someone can take a nothing party to ruling Germany in 15 years is amazing, especially how he manipulated people. He knew what he was doing on the political scene, knew how to persuade and move people, and it was utter genius. Now only if he could have done that for good .
quote: cause a man who needed constant medications and who could not get a certain body part to work , not to mention how crappie his moves on the maps where |
What does that have anything to do with genius. If Einstein suffered from these 'ailments' would you be saying he wasn't a genius.. of course not. |
are you feeling okay or what ?
einstein did not put people in gazchambers , ....
how on earth can you even compare them ?
sjee , .....
you really ought to tour europe with me , lets see if you talk like this after you visited with me an "extermination" camp , ........
and no i shall not take you to aushwitz , i know some better ones , ..... places where you can pick up till this day burned bones from people , ......
lets see if you find one mother****ing adolf hitler still a genius , the man could not even get his ****er up , ....
i and some other people here feel lonely at certain events , birthdays , bar mitzva's , even funerals , you know why , ...
cause your stupid "genius" is responsible for killing my relativs , .......
and a couple million other people , ...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|