If some people truly believe that being Gay upsets the maker of the universe, and you burn in hell for it - then by their beliefs, they can and should say something.
In a way I respect proselytizers and fundies so much more than the cherry picking luke warm pseudo-Christians.
And this is why hate speech laws generally do not target people who say "my religion says homosexuality is a sin." They target people who say "my religion says all you ****** ********ers should go to hell, quick." Do you see the difference?
Yes I see the difference, unfortunately you are empirically wrong about hate speech laws generally targeting only people who direct their hate at specific identifiable individuals.
I mean just look at the issues that the Canadian Human right Tribunals had. Free speech laws, even narrowly tailored ones, are almost always used by people who's ideology is in power to eliminate the opposing ideology from public expression, not only when that ideology is targeted at specific individuals.
Your statements that they generally don't go after people stating "my opinion..." is just plain not true.
...You lost me. If hate speech laws aren't going to stop people from using hate speech, how are they mitigating the harm that such speech causes? Or am I misunderstanding?
Because not all hate speech is created equal.
Hate speech laws typically focus on the most pernicious and actively harmful types of hate speech, the kind that causes people serious mental and emotional anguish. But not all hate speech does.
Then what defines it as hate speech?
Quote from "Senori" »
And this is why hate speech laws generally do not target people who say "my religion says homosexuality is a sin." They target people who say "my religion says all you ****** ********ers should go to hell, quick." Do you see the difference?
Yes, but I don't see how one is harmful and the other isn't. Because one uses cruder language?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."
This definition is as broadly defined as possible, but even from it you can see where the line might be drawn.
Yes, but I don't see how one is harmful and the other isn't. Because one uses cruder language?
Because one is an active attempt to intimidate and disparage, and the other is not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
And this is why hate speech laws generally do not target people who say "my religion says homosexuality is a sin." They target people who say "my religion says all you ****** ********ers should go to hell, quick." Do you see the difference?
Yes, but I don't see how one is harmful and the other isn't. Because one uses cruder language?
especially since saying: "being gay is a sin" is really no different from saying "if you have gay sex you're going to hell"
If anything the only big difference I see here is you keep referencing the speech telling people to die or kill themselves...
OK, stepping back, breathing, and... diving back in:
The simple matter is that the use of a possible future harm that may or may not be partially contributed to by expression of an idea to justify prohibiting expression of that idea is absolutely anathema to the first amendment and to the concept of "freedom of speech".
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
I still see the "billboards" as being the least of the worries here. I imagine it caused more by bullying/harassment, lack of support at home...
Sure. But all of those are things we should work to minimize.
Quote from Fluffy_Bunny »
Are we going to make it illegal for parents to hate their kids for being gay? How's that going to work?
Um, there are already protections for children who are abused physically or emotionally by their parents because of their sexuality. This is part of what Child Protective Services exists for.
1) I agree... we should work to minimize them through societal pressures, education and support. Not by making it illegal to share the other view.
2) And how well has that been working at getting gay kids away from their parents that would send them to a "pray the gay away" camp?
The Hate Speech may be a contributing factor to the depression that causes harm (suicides, etc., etc.) but it isn't CAUSATION.
Heck, even in the case of Dharun Ravi, he TARGETED Clementi, which they determined was a clear case of bullying. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crime-rutgersbre84h16c-20120518_1_tyler-clementi-dharun-ravi-gay-tryst
But lets get real here, in NO way would he have been found guilty if all he did was express in public his opinion that "Gays are sick abominations who should die" - Clementi heard this, and it contributed to his depression. Ravi would have walked if that was the case.
Furthermore,
Japan has a suicide rate twice the USA, and they aren't all gay bullying victims.
If your goal is to suppress or outlaw certain speech because some of the people it affects commit suicide, or hurt themselves - then by that logic we should outlaw unemployment, adultery, the idolatry of super models, or anything else that might have distinct correlations to the suicidal depression of individuals so affected.
I mean, being gay and thus a member of the group shamed by anti-gay hate speech in this sense is actually no different than being fat and a member of the group shamed by fat jokes, or ugly and a member of the group shamed by ugly jokes.
The damage to self-esteem, and the real and measurable depressions associated with those things, the negative body image, the hurtful slander, the gossip behind your back, the pranks, the deliberate ridicule, the judgment, the bullying - it's real, it's there, and people effected by it do hurt or even kill themselves, or develop disorders that cause real harm.
Ban it all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The Hate Speech may be a contributing factor to the depression that causes harm (suicides, etc., etc.) but it isn't CAUSATION.
Heck, even in the case of Dharun Ravi, he TARGETED Clementi, which they determined was a clear case of bullying. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crime-rutgersbre84h16c-20120518_1_tyler-clementi-dharun-ravi-gay-tryst
But lets get real here, in NO way would he have been found guilty if all he did was express in public his opinion that "Gays are sick abominations who should die" - Clementi heard this, and it contributed to his depression. Ravi would have walked if that was the case.
Furthermore,
Japan has a suicide rate twice the USA, and they aren't all gay bullying victims.
If your goal is to suppress or outlaw certain speech because some of the people it affects commit suicide, or hurt themselves - then by that logic we should outlaw unemployment, adultery, the idolatry of super models, or anything else that might have distinct correlations to the suicidal depression of individuals so affected.
I mean, being gay and thus a member of the group shamed by anti-gay hate speech in this sense is actually no different than being fat and a member of the group shamed by fat jokes, or ugly and a member of the group shamed by ugly jokes.
The damage to self-esteem, and the real and measurable depressions associated with those things, the negative body image, the hurtful slander, the gossip behind your back, the pranks, the deliberate ridicule, the judgment, the bullying - it's real, it's there, and people effected by it do hurt or even kill themselves, or develop disorders that cause real harm.
Ban it all?
Just jumping in here to speed this up... I assume the answer is going to be:
"Fat people can choose to change!!
Sexual preference and race are protected traits, fatness and ugliness are not because they havent been systematically oppressed!"
I didn't ignore the bulk of your argument. In fact I couldn't disagree with your logic more. Specifically when you say that banning hate speech against gays is the same as banning leftist speech. They're not even close. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
It's not a slippery slope argument; it's a reductio ad absurdum. I am applying the logic of "causes stress → ban it" evenly to show that it leads to conclusions we want to reject. What is a fallacy is special pleading, which is exactly what you're doing when you try to point out differences in the two cases that are not relevant to the logical structure of the argument being used.
You mistake hate speech to be the same as passionate speech. Whereas I think anyone that wants to own a tank is a ****ing lunatic, I highly doubt my thoughts on that is going to cause a tank owner to commit suicide. Even if everyone in the world thinks the guy is a lunatic, the guy could simply not own a tank, he has that choice.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm smiling a little. People usually don't play into my hand quite this neatly. Observe: "Whereas I think anyone that wants to have gay sex is a ****ing lunatic, I highly doubt my thoughts on that is going to cause a gay guy to commit suicide. Even if everyone in the world thinks the guy is a lunatic, the guy could simply not have gay sex, he has that choice."
The problem here is that you're equivocating between the activity, which he has a choice about, and the underlying desires, which he doesn't. And it is exactly the disconnect between desire and activity, when society at large disapproves of the activity, that leads to feelings of otherness and persecution.
Now, it is true that gays can't change their desires at all, whereas survivalists probably could in theory. They've got deep-seated convictions, but they're not born with the desire to dig bunkers in their backyards; it's not the same as biological hard-wiring. So maybe you want to say that survivalists should choose to change, to conform to the majority opinion. But I hope you see the danger in that reasoning. First, it would imply that if there were an orientation-switching therapy, gays should all take it. And second, there are other groups generally considered to be "persecuted minorities" that are, like the survivalists, matters of conviction rather than constitution: I am speaking of course of religions. What you're saying is like saying that there is no problem with stress among, say, Jews because they could all just convert to mainstream Christianity.
It is surely in the interest of a free society to protect all minorities, whether they be political, religious, or biological in nature.
Then take a look at Russia, WBC, etc., the constant claim that homosexuals will meet a fiery doom, I've heard homophobic people say that "gays aren't even real people."
And you and I have both just casually accused survivalists of being insane.
As someone who knows many survivalists and gay people, I find the comparison utterly lacking.
Consider the possibility that this is because you sympathize with gay people and don't sympathize with survivalists. Try to do more of the latter. I'm not asking you to agree with them, just to acknowledge that when they get angsty about the government trying to get them or whatever, that angst has real consequences for their health.
It may not be your intent, but are diminishing the issue of gay teen suicide by relating it to the "stress" that "survivalists" feel from... I guess I don't get this.
I've already been over this. I'm not diminishing gay stress and suicide. I'm trying to get you to take other stress and suicide just as seriously. You, like mikeyG, are being callous and dismissive because you're examining a group you don't like very much. I chose my example quite deliberately, to get you to think about your reasoning from another angle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To be clear: I'm not taking a particular position on hate speech laws. I'm generally more in favor of free speech, but I'm sympathetic to the aims of hate speech laws. The boundary between merely advocating a position or expressing a dislike and inciting violence and invidious societal discrimination is a grey one. If millions of Americans took up the message of Westboro Baptist Church, you'd see a rash of anti-gay lynchings in the US in short order. Dehumanization is a well-known step on the way to genocidal violence, and there is some reason to be concerned about hate speech for that reason.
The question is what is the most effective response and what are the negative side effects. Not whether we should shrug and say priests have a right to get on the radio and call Tutsis cockroaches.
Part of the problem is that it's when it's sustained and coming from a number of people (or very influential people) that it becomes a problem, not when it's just one voice in the wilderness. And that's probably the source of the problem with such laws.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm smiling a little. People usually don't play into my hand quite this neatly. Observe: "Whereas I think anyone that wants to have gay sex is a ****ing lunatic, I highly doubt my thoughts on that is going to cause a gay guy to commit suicide. Even if everyone in the world thinks the guy is a lunatic, the guy could simply not have gay sex, he has that choice."
Oh come on
The reason your comparison is ridiculous is because of three key differences:
1. the reality of homophobia and oppression against gay people meaning that while in theory the tank-wanters could suffer equally in practice they most definitely do not. IWasteMoney might think that about a guy who wants to own a tank and it won't matter, because in reality someone like that does not have to deal with such abuse regularly. And most likely has not received it from family members and authority figures he respects.
2. the deep-seated nature of sexual orientation and the importance of sexual and romantic urges to human experience. Owning a tank is not nearly as important to anyone except possibly a handful of psychologically fixated people and it certainly has no argument to having origins in genetics and the like.
and
3. the fact that homosexuality does not harm others, versus the very good reasons you might want to prohibit people from owning tanks and therefore speak out against it.
If "owning a tank" was a perfectly harmless activity that couldn't result in, you know, irresponsible people blowing up buildings, and people who wanted to own them were a large group of people who had this as an essential (perhaps even biological) part of their identity and they were oppressed by society and constantly received messages that they were worthless or disgusting, etc. then I imagine that the people who are in favor of hate speech laws would support including them in the hate speech laws.
You know, if they were exactly the type of people who qualify as a protected class.
To be clear: I'm not taking a particular position on hate speech laws. I'm generally more in favor of free speech, but I'm sympathetic to the aims of hate speech laws. The boundary between merely advocating a position or expressing a dislike and inciting violence and invidious societal discrimination is a grey one. If millions of Americans took up the message of Westboro Baptist Church, you'd see a rash of anti-gay lynchings in the US in short order. Dehumanization is a well-known step on the way to genocidal violence, and there is some reason to be concerned about hate speech for that reason.
The question is what is the most effective response and what are the negative side effects. Not whether we should shrug and say priests have a right to get on the radio and call Tutsis cockroaches.
Part of the problem is that it's when it's sustained and coming from a number of people (or very influential people) that it becomes a problem, not when it's just one voice in the wilderness. And that's probably the source of the problem with such laws.
Even in that case where say 10% of the population goes along with Westboro... there are other laws to prevent lynchings. Not saying they wont happen. But saying we shouldnt let people speak their mind because it might cause them to commit other crimes eventually is kind of crazy. Should we ban the Muslim religion because at some point someone radical will plan to blow up a building? or do we screen all Muslims to see if they are spreading a radical version?
Even in that case where say 10% of the population goes along with Westboro... there are other laws to prevent lynchings. Not saying they wont happen.
Well, that's all well and good if you're straight.
I don't particularly like the idea that we'll only do something about the rabid homophobes after they kill you.
But saying we shouldnt let people speak their mind because it might cause them to commit other crimes eventually is kind of crazy. Should we ban the Muslim religion because at some point someone radical will plan to blow up a building? or do we screen all Muslims to see if they are spreading a radical version?
Well, for one, I specifically used the Westboro Baptist Church rather than "Christianity" for a reason.
For another, I said I wasn't set on supporting any particular law.
And thirdly, the Islam is not synonymous with hate speech, so even under hate speech laws you're acting like there's a ridiculous slippery slope there that does not exist.
Is there a liberal democracy which bans hate speech and bans Islam as a result of it? If not, you're going to have to work hard to justify that ridiculous and frankly idiotic slippy slope argument.
Anywho, on the subject of Islam, I am sensitive to the over-application of such laws, since there are Muslim countries who claim, for example, that criticism of Islam is hate speech, or China bans people for supporting Tibet because it "hurts the feelings of the Chinese people". Malaysia recently imprisoned bloggers who posted a picture of themselves eating a pork stew along with a caption wishing Muslims a good Ramadan (or something similar to that) because it supposedly was inciting hatred.
In those cases, it's really just to suppress debate and hypocritically done as well since non-Muslims and Tibetans would be unlikely to receive such "protection" if the situation were reversed.
It may be that hate speech laws do more harm than good by providing cover to oppressive regimes such as the one in Malaysia and China.
I'd be open to such an argument.
What I'm NOT open to is the argument that they're dumb because the harm of homophobic rhetoric is just like calling a survivalist who wants a tank a bit nuts. Which yes, does trivialize the suffering of LGBT people.
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Can you provide an example that could not be stopped under current US laws governing assembly, noise, harassment, intent to insight a riot, etc?
Public advertisements calling for "******s" to kill themselves.
A TV show that showed a bunch of stereotypical moronic "******s" guffawing in pre-Civil War contentment.
And of course, most hate groups are too stupid to hide their goal of returning to the "good old days" when _insert minority group_ "knew their place". If not outright killing.
Are bikini ads actively harmful to women with low self esteem?
Not only are the two not comparable (and transparently so), it's patently offensive that you'd even suggest the two be compared.
It's not even a matter of self-esteem. Which is fine, because self-esteem is Objectivist woo anyway. Rather, it's a matter of openly soliciting murder.
(Also, as to "stop doing that", what? You don't know? 99% of debaters are polite enough to make their opponent's argument for them. Isn't that so nice.)
Even in that case where say 10% of the population goes along with Westboro... there are other laws to prevent lynchings. Not saying they wont happen. But saying we shouldnt let people speak their mind because it might cause them to commit other crimes eventually is kind of crazy. Should we ban the Muslim religion because at some point someone radical will plan to blow up a building? or do we screen all Muslims to see if they are spreading a radical version?
There's still such a thing as pro-life acts of terrorism, if we're talking about religion.
But in the case of Muslims, it's more things like Holocaust denialism, which is, sadly, a big part of discourse wrt: Israel in that part of the world. Unfortunately for them, it makes anyone who criticizes Israeli treatment of Palestinians look loony.
But not religion itself. More when a priest or imam or whatever advocates violence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I'm not gonna lie, I'm smiling a little. People usually don't play into my hand quite this neatly. Observe: "Whereas I think anyone that wants to have gay sex is a ****ing lunatic, I highly doubt my thoughts on that is going to cause a gay guy to commit suicide. Even if everyone in the world thinks the guy is a lunatic, the guy could simply not have gay sex, he has that choice."
Oh come on
The reason your comparison is ridiculous is because of three key differences:
1. the reality of homophobia and oppression against gay people meaning that while in theory the tank-wanters could suffer equally in practice they most definitely do not. IWasteMoney might think that about a guy who wants to own a tank and it won't matter, because in reality someone like that does not have to deal with such abuse regularly. And most likely has not received it from family members and authority figures he respects.
2. the deep-seated nature of sexual orientation and the importance of sexual and romantic urges to human experience. Owning a tank is not nearly as important to anyone except possibly a handful of psychologically fixated people and it certainly has no argument to having origins in genetics and the like.
Look, erimir, I generally like and respect your opinion. But you clearly stopped reading and started typing right after the paragraph you quoted. I directly address these objections.
(And I might ask: what is romantic desire if not a "psychological fixation"?)
3. the fact that homosexuality does not harm others, versus the very good reasons you might want to prohibit people from owning tanks and therefore speak out against it.
Oh, good, somebody sprung my other little trap. If we've decided that the survivalists' position is harmful, does that mean we get to ban their speech? Only one side gets to talk on gun control/rights issues?
What I'm NOT open to is the argument that they're dumb because the harm of homophobic rhetoric is just like calling a survivalist who wants a tank a bit nuts.
Not actually what I said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Look, erimir, I generally like and respect your opinion. But you clearly stopped reading and started typing right after the paragraph you quoted. I directly address these objections.
Not really.
You don't really address the fact that tank-wanters are not actually persecuted in society (and have no significant history of being persecuted).
You don't address the fact that the existence of people who consider their desire to own a tank an essential part of their identity is merely theoretical (I certainly know of no such people).
You don't address the fact that sex, love and companionship are important parts of the human experience (with deep evolutionary roots, I might add), and the ownership of tanks (which didn't even exist 100 years ago) is not.
A lot of it boils down to "in theory" tank-wanting survivalists could be like persecuted gay people. Well, if that theory was reality, I wouldn't find suggesting that hate speech laws protect them to be ridiculous.
But that theory is not reality. And therefore the comparison fails. Laws do not always need to address every theoretical possibility.
(And I might ask: what is romantic desire if not a "psychological fixation"?)
Is that really what you want to argue? That wanting to own a tank and wanting sex, love and companionship are somehow equal?
You know they're not. I don't have patience at the moment to pretend that they are for the sake of argument.
3. the fact that homosexuality does not harm others, versus the very good reasons you might want to prohibit people from owning tanks and therefore speak out against it.
Oh, good, somebody sprung my other little trap.
Being smug about your supposed "traps" isn't helping you.
If we've decided that the survivalists' position is harmful, does that mean we get to ban their speech? Only one side gets to talk on gun control/rights issues?
No, it does not mean that we get to ban their speech. Nothing I said implies that we would.
It means that it is reasonable to argue against allowing them to fulfill their desires, and therefore would be unreasonable to ban it as "hate speech".
And before you try to say "Well some people might say the same thing about homosexuality"... I understand that some people think that it is reasonable to call me an abomination, but I am not obligated to pretend that they are reasonable simply because they are numerous.
And it gets awful tiresome to even have people who are supposedly accepting act like it's reasonable to treat my existence as a valid question for debate and act like they're just trying to be logical.
And before you try to say "Well some people might say the same thing about homosexuality"... I understand that some people think that it is reasonable to call me an abomination, but I am not obligated to pretend that they are reasonable simply because they are numerous.
Pretending they're reasonable=/=banning them from speaking.
And it gets awful tiresome to even have people who are supposedly accepting act like it's reasonable to treat my existence as a valid question for debate and act like they're just trying to be logical.
It also gets quite tiresome trying to have to explain these 'hate speech' laws are pushed by Commies and useful idiots. TheFire.org, Few youtube videos [1][2][3].
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Pretending they're reasonable=/=banning them from speaking.
Good thing I never said or implied those were the same thing, then.
Right, you half heartedly explicitly stated it. Then you went on to fallaciously rationalize how only causes you believe in deserve the protection.
This is how you sound in the below quote. "I'm not saying gay people deserve to purged from the human race, but i sympathize with Hitler's aims in doing so."
To be clear: I'm not taking a particular position on hate speech laws. I'm generally more in favor of free speech, but I'm sympathetic to the aims of hate speech laws. The boundary between merely advocating a position or expressing a dislike and inciting violence and invidious societal discrimination is a grey one. If millions of Americans took up the message of Westboro Baptist Church, you'd see a rash of anti-gay lynchings in the US in short order. Dehumanization is a well-known step on the way to genocidal violence, and there is some reason to be concerned about hate speech for that reason.
...
You know, if they were exactly the type of people who qualify as a protected class.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
No. I don't mean kind of like that. I specifically selected a high profile political issue to demonstrate how the rehtoric being pushed by senori can be used to prohibit the expression of a legitimate political position.
I did not say a thing about MRA groups, because thats not really germane and would not support the argument I was making.
That the people opposing abortion don't really care about children should be evident in them throwing their lot in with the people wanting to demolish all social support networks.
Oh give it a rest. That's not the topic for this thread, if you want to spew leftist dreck, at least spew on topic leftist dreck.
And yup, much of opposition to abortion is founded in a desire to control women. That the people opposing abortion don't really care about children should be evident in them throwing their lot in with the people wanting to demolish all social support networks. I mean c'mon, how many of them support sexual education? How many of them support women having sex how they want? How many of them support family planning? How many of them support public education? How many of them support anything at all that would actually make pregnancy less of a burden on the woman and her family?
So am I correct in my understanding that you would be in support of hate speech regulation that prevents pro-life speech?
Seems to me that this is the exact kind of thing that the free speech supporters in this thread are talking about needing to avoid. Keep in mind I am pro-choice, but I dont want to "win" that battle by passing a law that basically just says "shut up! your position is mean!".
If you want to ask people to take a stand on whether something could be considered hate speech or not
...
I didn't.
I picked a politically relevant topic that I (apparently wrongly) assumed everyone would agree wasn't hate speech. I was intentionally trying to get across that his rhetoric was flawed.
Incidentally, you've done an admirable (although unintentional) job proving just how harmful and repressive hate speech legislation can be. So, thank you, I guess?
Edit: Also, whats with the dog picture? I don't get it...
I picked a politically relevant topic that I (apparently wrongly) assumed everyone would agree wasn't hate speech
Yeah, your assumption was flawed on multiple levels. It was a mistake to think that opposition to abortion is harmless and a greater mistake to think that nobody could possibly know otherwise. "I don't support sexism, I just don't want women to have the same rights as men" is like saying "I don't support homophobia, I just don't want LGBT people to have the same rights as straight people".
You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to expres sit I suppose but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and derail the current topic.
Which is, I suppose, whether or not you think it would be acceptible for the government to crack down on pro-life speech by restricting/prohibbiting it as hate speech.
If yes: Like I said, you just proved my point about how insidious and dangerous it is to prohibit "hate speech"
If no: What is the difference that makes it not somethin we should prohibit?
(Basically, it appears that you are all in favor of prohibiting political dissent from your ideology which is the absolute essential reason why the freedom of speech has to exist in the first place. Because of people like you.)
I dunno, maybe its because English isn't your first language, or maybe I'm not asking very well -- either way you aren't getting the question I'm asking at well.
Let me put it a different way:
Is there a circumstance in which you support the use of governmental powers to prohibit or restrict fundamentally political speech that opposes your particular political ideology?
If so, what is that circumstance?
And, How does that coincide with the general concept of freedom of speech?
As a result of your answers to the above, do you, then, not think there should be a right to free speech?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes I see the difference, unfortunately you are empirically wrong about hate speech laws generally targeting only people who direct their hate at specific identifiable individuals.
I mean just look at the issues that the Canadian Human right Tribunals had. Free speech laws, even narrowly tailored ones, are almost always used by people who's ideology is in power to eliminate the opposing ideology from public expression, not only when that ideology is targeted at specific individuals.
Your statements that they generally don't go after people stating "my opinion..." is just plain not true.
Then what defines it as hate speech?
Yes, but I don't see how one is harmful and the other isn't. Because one uses cruder language?
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."
This definition is as broadly defined as possible, but even from it you can see where the line might be drawn.
Because one is an active attempt to intimidate and disparage, and the other is not.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
especially since saying: "being gay is a sin" is really no different from saying "if you have gay sex you're going to hell"
If anything the only big difference I see here is you keep referencing the speech telling people to die or kill themselves...
The simple matter is that the use of a possible future harm that may or may not be partially contributed to by expression of an idea to justify prohibiting expression of that idea is absolutely anathema to the first amendment and to the concept of "freedom of speech".
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
1) I agree... we should work to minimize them through societal pressures, education and support. Not by making it illegal to share the other view.
2) And how well has that been working at getting gay kids away from their parents that would send them to a "pray the gay away" camp?
The Hate Speech may be a contributing factor to the depression that causes harm (suicides, etc., etc.) but it isn't CAUSATION.
Heck, even in the case of Dharun Ravi, he TARGETED Clementi, which they determined was a clear case of bullying.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crime-rutgersbre84h16c-20120518_1_tyler-clementi-dharun-ravi-gay-tryst
But lets get real here, in NO way would he have been found guilty if all he did was express in public his opinion that "Gays are sick abominations who should die" - Clementi heard this, and it contributed to his depression. Ravi would have walked if that was the case.
Furthermore,
Japan has a suicide rate twice the USA, and they aren't all gay bullying victims.
If your goal is to suppress or outlaw certain speech because some of the people it affects commit suicide, or hurt themselves - then by that logic we should outlaw unemployment, adultery, the idolatry of super models, or anything else that might have distinct correlations to the suicidal depression of individuals so affected.
I mean, being gay and thus a member of the group shamed by anti-gay hate speech in this sense is actually no different than being fat and a member of the group shamed by fat jokes, or ugly and a member of the group shamed by ugly jokes.
The damage to self-esteem, and the real and measurable depressions associated with those things, the negative body image, the hurtful slander, the gossip behind your back, the pranks, the deliberate ridicule, the judgment, the bullying - it's real, it's there, and people effected by it do hurt or even kill themselves, or develop disorders that cause real harm.
Ban it all?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Just jumping in here to speed this up... I assume the answer is going to be:
"Fat people can choose to change!!
Sexual preference and race are protected traits, fatness and ugliness are not because they havent been systematically oppressed!"
I'm not gonna lie, I'm smiling a little. People usually don't play into my hand quite this neatly. Observe: "Whereas I think anyone that wants to have gay sex is a ****ing lunatic, I highly doubt my thoughts on that is going to cause a gay guy to commit suicide. Even if everyone in the world thinks the guy is a lunatic, the guy could simply not have gay sex, he has that choice."
The problem here is that you're equivocating between the activity, which he has a choice about, and the underlying desires, which he doesn't. And it is exactly the disconnect between desire and activity, when society at large disapproves of the activity, that leads to feelings of otherness and persecution.
Now, it is true that gays can't change their desires at all, whereas survivalists probably could in theory. They've got deep-seated convictions, but they're not born with the desire to dig bunkers in their backyards; it's not the same as biological hard-wiring. So maybe you want to say that survivalists should choose to change, to conform to the majority opinion. But I hope you see the danger in that reasoning. First, it would imply that if there were an orientation-switching therapy, gays should all take it. And second, there are other groups generally considered to be "persecuted minorities" that are, like the survivalists, matters of conviction rather than constitution: I am speaking of course of religions. What you're saying is like saying that there is no problem with stress among, say, Jews because they could all just convert to mainstream Christianity.
It is surely in the interest of a free society to protect all minorities, whether they be political, religious, or biological in nature.
And you and I have both just casually accused survivalists of being insane.
Consider the possibility that this is because you sympathize with gay people and don't sympathize with survivalists. Try to do more of the latter. I'm not asking you to agree with them, just to acknowledge that when they get angsty about the government trying to get them or whatever, that angst has real consequences for their health.
I've already been over this. I'm not diminishing gay stress and suicide. I'm trying to get you to take other stress and suicide just as seriously. You, like mikeyG, are being callous and dismissive because you're examining a group you don't like very much. I chose my example quite deliberately, to get you to think about your reasoning from another angle.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The question is what is the most effective response and what are the negative side effects. Not whether we should shrug and say priests have a right to get on the radio and call Tutsis cockroaches.
Part of the problem is that it's when it's sustained and coming from a number of people (or very influential people) that it becomes a problem, not when it's just one voice in the wilderness. And that's probably the source of the problem with such laws.
Oh come on
The reason your comparison is ridiculous is because of three key differences:
1. the reality of homophobia and oppression against gay people meaning that while in theory the tank-wanters could suffer equally in practice they most definitely do not. IWasteMoney might think that about a guy who wants to own a tank and it won't matter, because in reality someone like that does not have to deal with such abuse regularly. And most likely has not received it from family members and authority figures he respects.
2. the deep-seated nature of sexual orientation and the importance of sexual and romantic urges to human experience. Owning a tank is not nearly as important to anyone except possibly a handful of psychologically fixated people and it certainly has no argument to having origins in genetics and the like.
and
3. the fact that homosexuality does not harm others, versus the very good reasons you might want to prohibit people from owning tanks and therefore speak out against it.
If "owning a tank" was a perfectly harmless activity that couldn't result in, you know, irresponsible people blowing up buildings, and people who wanted to own them were a large group of people who had this as an essential (perhaps even biological) part of their identity and they were oppressed by society and constantly received messages that they were worthless or disgusting, etc. then I imagine that the people who are in favor of hate speech laws would support including them in the hate speech laws.
You know, if they were exactly the type of people who qualify as a protected class.
Even in that case where say 10% of the population goes along with Westboro... there are other laws to prevent lynchings. Not saying they wont happen. But saying we shouldnt let people speak their mind because it might cause them to commit other crimes eventually is kind of crazy. Should we ban the Muslim religion because at some point someone radical will plan to blow up a building? or do we screen all Muslims to see if they are spreading a radical version?
I don't particularly like the idea that we'll only do something about the rabid homophobes after they kill you.
Well, for one, I specifically used the Westboro Baptist Church rather than "Christianity" for a reason.
For another, I said I wasn't set on supporting any particular law.
And thirdly, the Islam is not synonymous with hate speech, so even under hate speech laws you're acting like there's a ridiculous slippery slope there that does not exist.
Is there a liberal democracy which bans hate speech and bans Islam as a result of it? If not, you're going to have to work hard to justify that ridiculous and frankly idiotic slippy slope argument.
Anywho, on the subject of Islam, I am sensitive to the over-application of such laws, since there are Muslim countries who claim, for example, that criticism of Islam is hate speech, or China bans people for supporting Tibet because it "hurts the feelings of the Chinese people". Malaysia recently imprisoned bloggers who posted a picture of themselves eating a pork stew along with a caption wishing Muslims a good Ramadan (or something similar to that) because it supposedly was inciting hatred.
In those cases, it's really just to suppress debate and hypocritically done as well since non-Muslims and Tibetans would be unlikely to receive such "protection" if the situation were reversed.
It may be that hate speech laws do more harm than good by providing cover to oppressive regimes such as the one in Malaysia and China.
I'd be open to such an argument.
What I'm NOT open to is the argument that they're dumb because the harm of homophobic rhetoric is just like calling a survivalist who wants a tank a bit nuts. Which yes, does trivialize the suffering of LGBT people.
You mean kinda like this? [1] [2] [3][4].
No, this kinda stuff would never happen.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
And of course, most hate groups are too stupid to hide their goal of returning to the "good old days" when _insert minority group_ "knew their place". If not outright killing.
It's not even a matter of self-esteem. Which is fine, because self-esteem is Objectivist woo anyway. Rather, it's a matter of openly soliciting murder.
(Also, as to "stop doing that", what? You don't know? 99% of debaters are polite enough to make their opponent's argument for them. Isn't that so nice.)
There's still such a thing as pro-life acts of terrorism, if we're talking about religion.
But in the case of Muslims, it's more things like Holocaust denialism, which is, sadly, a big part of discourse wrt: Israel in that part of the world. Unfortunately for them, it makes anyone who criticizes Israeli treatment of Palestinians look loony.
But not religion itself. More when a priest or imam or whatever advocates violence.
On phasing:
(And I might ask: what is romantic desire if not a "psychological fixation"?)
Oh, good, somebody sprung my other little trap. If we've decided that the survivalists' position is harmful, does that mean we get to ban their speech? Only one side gets to talk on gun control/rights issues?
Not actually what I said.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You don't really address the fact that tank-wanters are not actually persecuted in society (and have no significant history of being persecuted).
You don't address the fact that the existence of people who consider their desire to own a tank an essential part of their identity is merely theoretical (I certainly know of no such people).
You don't address the fact that sex, love and companionship are important parts of the human experience (with deep evolutionary roots, I might add), and the ownership of tanks (which didn't even exist 100 years ago) is not.
A lot of it boils down to "in theory" tank-wanting survivalists could be like persecuted gay people. Well, if that theory was reality, I wouldn't find suggesting that hate speech laws protect them to be ridiculous.
But that theory is not reality. And therefore the comparison fails. Laws do not always need to address every theoretical possibility.
Is that really what you want to argue? That wanting to own a tank and wanting sex, love and companionship are somehow equal?
You know they're not. I don't have patience at the moment to pretend that they are for the sake of argument.
Being smug about your supposed "traps" isn't helping you.
No, it does not mean that we get to ban their speech. Nothing I said implies that we would.
It means that it is reasonable to argue against allowing them to fulfill their desires, and therefore would be unreasonable to ban it as "hate speech".
And before you try to say "Well some people might say the same thing about homosexuality"... I understand that some people think that it is reasonable to call me an abomination, but I am not obligated to pretend that they are reasonable simply because they are numerous.
And it gets awful tiresome to even have people who are supposedly accepting act like it's reasonable to treat my existence as a valid question for debate and act like they're just trying to be logical.
Pretending they're reasonable=/=banning them from speaking.
It also gets quite tiresome trying to have to explain these 'hate speech' laws are pushed by Commies and useful idiots. TheFire.org, Few youtube videos [1][2] [3].
Curious which one are you?
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
That's nice.
Right, you half heartedly explicitly stated it. Then you went on to fallaciously rationalize how only causes you believe in deserve the protection.
This is how you sound in the below quote. "I'm not saying gay people deserve to purged from the human race, but i sympathize with Hitler's aims in doing so."
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
No. I don't mean kind of like that. I specifically selected a high profile political issue to demonstrate how the rehtoric being pushed by senori can be used to prohibit the expression of a legitimate political position.
I did not say a thing about MRA groups, because thats not really germane and would not support the argument I was making.
Oh give it a rest. That's not the topic for this thread, if you want to spew leftist dreck, at least spew on topic leftist dreck.
So am I correct in my understanding that you would be in support of hate speech regulation that prevents pro-life speech?
Seems to me that this is the exact kind of thing that the free speech supporters in this thread are talking about needing to avoid. Keep in mind I am pro-choice, but I dont want to "win" that battle by passing a law that basically just says "shut up! your position is mean!".
...
I didn't.
I picked a politically relevant topic that I (apparently wrongly) assumed everyone would agree wasn't hate speech. I was intentionally trying to get across that his rhetoric was flawed.
Incidentally, you've done an admirable (although unintentional) job proving just how harmful and repressive hate speech legislation can be. So, thank you, I guess?
Edit: Also, whats with the dog picture? I don't get it...
You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to expres sit I suppose but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and derail the current topic.
Which is, I suppose, whether or not you think it would be acceptible for the government to crack down on pro-life speech by restricting/prohibbiting it as hate speech.
If yes: Like I said, you just proved my point about how insidious and dangerous it is to prohibit "hate speech"
If no: What is the difference that makes it not somethin we should prohibit?
(Basically, it appears that you are all in favor of prohibiting political dissent from your ideology which is the absolute essential reason why the freedom of speech has to exist in the first place. Because of people like you.)
Let me put it a different way:
Is there a circumstance in which you support the use of governmental powers to prohibit or restrict fundamentally political speech that opposes your particular political ideology?
If so, what is that circumstance?
And, How does that coincide with the general concept of freedom of speech?
As a result of your answers to the above, do you, then, not think there should be a right to free speech?