 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Asher - quote:
Obiwan's story is from the perspective of someone very religious and very devout in his pro-life beliefs, don't believe he's telling you the unbiased story of what happened. |
quote:
Plus intent is also a matter: In the "holocaust" example, they are historical records with historical value. Showing dead fetuses as part of a pro-life booth is simply bad taste, vulgar, and purely political. |
Hmm... you were talking about bias? 
Tingkai - quote:
Is proof of malicious intent required under US libel law? It's not required in Canada. |
I believe it is wrt slander and I'm not really sure how slander is different than libel. Malice has to be shown and that makes it much more difficult, so much so libel/slander cases are rather rare in the US.  The last one to make headlines was Oprah's show indicting beef and she was sued by the cattle/beef assoc...she won her case down in Texas.
quote:
The Canadian law merely looks at whether it is reasonable to conclude that a statement might lower a person's standing within a community. There is no requirement to prove that specific damage has occurred. |
Yikes, that standard is a hazard to free speech IMO. Just saying someone is a homosexual could do that within many communities.
quote:
So if someone says John is a paedaphile, he does not have to prove that this has damaged his reputation. |
I'd agree with that since the damage is self-evident, most libel cases are brought for economic damage like the Oprah suit. But here malice would have to be a factor so that honest mistakes can be made without lawsuits being filed and won.
quote:
But libel laws do not cover a case where groups are named instead of individuals, even though saying "homosexuals are all paedaphiles" can be just as damaging as saying "John is a paedaphile." That's why we need laws against hate speech. |
If reason is the standard, is it reasonable to reach such a conclusion about all homosexuals? You see, comments (including jokes) about the Catholic Church and pedophilism could be construed as "hate" speech based on such generalisations. That's the problem with expanding libel laws protecting individuals to "hate crime" laws protecting groups since the use of generalisations is so common.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
This is flagrant bullshit. From this and your other comments I am convinced you don't, and have never, attended a university, or if you did, you have had your head inserted into your backside for the entire time. 
Everyone knows that student unions are almost all run by what most people call "left leaning" groups. I have attended and taught at a couple of universities for over a decade now and only once has there been a right wing student union executive (and that was a first in NZ - it didn't last long: they were so spectacularly incompetent they got thrown out).
Those who end up getting voted in (usually with a pathetically low turnout) are almost always malcontents whose sole aim is to get everyone else at the university to submit to their political will. While these people will pay lip service to those with opposing views, in practice they will do all that is within their power to suppress them.
If you attended a university you would know that there are four things which no one may even be mildly critical of for any reason without provoking a storm of hate and reprisals. These are: blacks; homosexuals; women/the feminist movement; and Jews.
These are protected species on campus (although perversely Israel bashing is permitted and even encouraged in some quarters). It doesn't matter what you actually did or what you actually said, if you are labelled an enemy by these people, they will do their best to make your life a misery. I've seen it happen numerous times.
It is wrong and Obi-wan and his friends are from the sound of it probably the objects of wrongful discrimination, but there isn't much one can do about it, short of abolishing the student union and student politics - since whoever's on top will tend to behave badly. I actually favour this last option, since I can't remember anything good coming out of student politics that wasn't adequately encouraged by some other organisation. |
Thanks for reminding us of the real world in most University campuses. I couldn't agree more. They opposed the anti-abortion posters because they oppose the accepted bias firmly entrenched on campus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
The Canadian law merely looks at whether it is reasonable to conclude that a statement might lower a person's standing within a community. There is no requirement to prove that specific damage has occurred. |
No wonder the United States and Canada went their seperate ways. What if the guy deserves to have his standing in the community lowered? Should we still retend that he is an upstanding individual so we don't have to go to jail for teling the truth?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:30
|
|
Asher:
First off, I was there, I'm considered a primary source. 
quote:
It's one thing to provide the pictures for people who are willing to see them, it's another thing to force them down other people's throats.
|
Gee. Whenever we are on campus we have 'warning signs' in front of our display that warn people about graphic pictures in front. If they choose to walk that way, they will see the pictures.
quote:
Plus intent is also a matter: In the "holocaust" example, they are historical records with historical value. Showing dead fetuses as part of a pro-life booth is simply bad taste, vulgar, and purely political.
|
Intent? What if I said my intent was to provide a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves?
quote:
Similarly, I'd hope a "stool appreciation club" with graphic pictures involving human stool would be forced to remove their pictures upon several complaints as well.
|
Done, though they were allowed to keep their pictures? You ever hear of the 'Piss Christ' display that did precisely that? They claimed to be 'artistic'.
quote:
"Free speech" has a limit within decency laws.
|
If 'decency' is the standard, why then are equally gross holocaust pictures permitted?
Oh, and BTW, you better get ready for these pictures to come on your campus. The prolife club in Calgary is just getting warmed up.
I bet they'll get a better response out there than on the 'Left' coast.
quote:
It's a different situation entirely:
one is during the holocust memorial week, one is during CLUB WEEK.
|
Awesome! You'd let us have a Prolife week on campus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No wonder the United States and Canada went their seperate ways. What if the guy deserves to have his standing in the community lowered? Should we still retend that he is an upstanding individual so we don't have to go to jail for teling the truth? |
Truth is a defence against libel in Canada and the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:
First off, I was there, I'm considered a primary source. |
Yes, a primary source with an agenda. 
quote:
If 'decency' is the standard, why then are equally gross holocaust pictures permitted? |
Did you register a complaint with the SU as several people did for your display?
quote:
Oh, and BTW, you better get ready for these pictures to come on your campus. The prolife club in Calgary is just getting warmed up.
I bet they'll get a better response out there than on the 'Left' coast. |
I'd doubt it, Calgary may be right-wing but not religiously so. You need to go out to rural Alberta to find the religious right-wingers.
Not to mention that my university simply doesn't permit that kind of display on campus. In fact there was a recent issue about even allowing topless "artwork" in the halls, and they were forced to take them down.
quote:
Awesome! You'd let us have a Prolife week on campus. |
Hey, why not. We've got a gay week, why not a pro-life week?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If 'decency' is the standard, why then are equally gross holocaust pictures permitted?
|
How about posting your abortion pic so we can judge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
When fat people, or WASP men, become the targets of violence based on hatred to any significant degree, then they too could come under the protection of our anti-hate legislation. |
Don't laugh! The US Bureau of Justice does include a category for hate crimes against white men not related to sexual orientation. IIRC it is one of the larger categories of violent hate crimes. In the United States evidently everyone is covered against hate crimes, even WASPS. The moral of that is that in the US don't shout a racial, religious, or sexual slur before you assault or murder someone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Should Peter Singer be allowed to advocate the killing of children and the disabled?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
should Peter Singer be prosecuted for a hate crime for saying this:
quote:
...not everyone, Singer thinks, is capable of wanting to be alive. He argues that in order to have an interest in staying alive, you have to be a thinking, self-aware being and have an understanding of yourself as a being which endures through time. Following philosophical tradition, he calls such beings "persons," in order, as he says in his 1993 book, Practical Ethics, "to capture those elements of the popular sense of 'human being' that are not covered by 'member of the species Homo sapiens.'" Only persons, he says, can be said to have an interest in living and a right not to be killed; non-persons, by definition, cannot.
Obviously, wherever Singer's ideas are accepted as the basis for policy, it becomes a vitally important thing to be seen as a person. Infants, for example, are seen as non-persons. According to Singer they may therefore be killed with far less justification than would be required if they were understood to be persons. Certain adults to whom labels such as "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), "profound mental retardation" and "dementia" are attached may also be killed with less justification, according to Singer.
It would be okay, for example, to kill a "non-person" if you did it because everyone else's preferences would be more likely to be fulfilled if that individual were removed from their lives: that's one justification Singer gives for letting parents kill newborns expected to become disabled children. If parents, freed of responsibility for the disabled infant, were able to try again, says Singer, both they and the non-disabled child they'd ultimately raise could expect to live happier lives.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
vomiting out = forced removal. Wouldn't that be an act of hate against a group as well? |
Which is the same as saying death = no homosexuals? That doesn't even make sense. |
Where did anyone say that? You're picking it apart and not looking at the whole. The judge even explicitely said it wasn't the Bible verses themselves that was the problem. It was the combination of verses, three of which advocated hateful/muderous actionss against gays, PLUS a graphic that depicted two homosexuals with a slash through them.
Now it seems to be you picking out and isolating only one of the passages for the convenience of your argument!
quote:
The ad is definetly more rationally read as saying the Bible says homosexuality is illegal. |
For you, perhaps, but I'd just say that's your own bias showing. I'll ask again: If a Nazi group ran an ad showing a Jewish symbol with a slash through it, and references some quotes that, among other things, talked about killing Jews, would you think it's more reasonable to assume the ad runners are advocating violence against Jews, or are just trying to peacefully express that they happen to think Judaism is wrong?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
I initially wrote that truth is not a defence against a libel charge in Britain, but then I started thinking this can't be right. It's been over 10 years since I did a media law course and I remember truth is treated differently in British libel law compared to US libel law.
Anyways, the difference is:
In the US, the person accusing someone of libel must prove the alleged libellous statements are false.
In Britian and Canada, the "defendent" must prove the statements are true.
So in the US, if you publish something that you believe in good faith to be true then you cannot be sued for libel.
In Britain and Canada, even if you believe something to be true, and even if you act without malice, if you cannot prove it to be true then you could lose a libel case.
Last edited by Tingkai on 20-09-2003 at 08:26
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
On the other hand, Peter Singer makes it clear that children up to 28 days after birth can be killed by a "responsible" adult. He teaches this at Princeton University. Is this a hate crime? And are the kids that he advocates killing entitled to "more equal than other" status?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So I can't call a judge a utter moron, now? |
You can, but you've offered nothing but a personal interpretation that the ad didn't obviously express hatred of homosexuals. Clearly, many people disagree with such an "obvious" interpretation.
quote:
So now Christians are akin to Nazis? |
Yeah, sure...that's exactly what I said.  Learn a little about analogies, and you might realize comparing situations isn't the same as stating the groups are akin to one another...
quote:
If some Anti-Israel or Jewish group quoted some Biblical references that made mention of doing stuff against Jews and some that said Jews are wrong and said that = the star of David crossed out, then I wouldn't think that meant that all Jews had to be killed. |
We're not just talking killed, Imran, m'dear. We're also talking violence and other acts of hate, which is what the law protects against. At any rate, I think you'll find your opinion isn't shared by most Jews, were they to see such an ad. I'll note you omitted, for the convenience of your argument, the references including calls to execute the target, which is what Leviticus and Romans do. Do you honestly think that an ad run with an image of a slash through a Jewish person plus verses that included a direct command to execute Jews would not be seen as a hate-inciting ad? Please.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 20-09-2003 at 19:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Do you honestly think that an ad run with an image of a slash through a Jewish person plus verses that included a direct command to execute Jews would not be seen as a hate-inciting ad? |
Would there also be some verses that said, say, Jews (or unbelievers.. since I don't think there are any Bible verses specifically anti-Jewish, per say) should be cast out of the community involved as well? So just a number of Biblical verses, some saying cast out the unbelievers, some saying convert the unbelievers, some saying kill unbelievers, and others saying Christianity is #1 included with an '=' and a crossing out of a Star of David or Israel? The Jews would complain, surely, but so what? I wouldn't necessarily consider it a hate-inducing ad, just as I don't consider Tom Chick's exortations against the Muslims as hate-inducing. It's mean the Bible does not condone those who are unbelievers of Christ.
Furthermore how many anti-homosexual passages in the Bible are 'benign'. If you were to say the Bible does not condone homosexuality, how would you do it without those clauses?
ALSO, You would have to LOOK UP or KNOW the Biblical provisions to realize that some of them said homosexuals should be killed. How many people have that knowledge?! How many people simply look at it and see Biblical verses = pictures of two men holding hands with a slash over it? I bet a very small minority of people looking at the ad thinks it stood for killing homosexuals. It's just silly to say so.
It's Bible does not = homosexuality. That simple.
quote:
Learn a little about analogies, and you might realize comparing situations isn't the same as stating the groups are akin to one another... |
I also know that whenever compares some group to the NAZIs they are trying to make the point that they are like the Nazis. There is a reason it is called Godwin's Law.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 21-09-2003 at 02:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Thanks Agathon. I just wonder what the people here that advocate the silencing and punishing of those who cite Bible verses as they relate to sodomy think about silencing and punishing Peter Singer? Does he get a free pass for some reason??
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-09-2003 15:13
Thanks for clearing that up.
|