All this person has to do is pull out a bible, and point to homophobic passages and make the claim that it was an argument based on faith (b), or that this shows that God does hate group XYZ, and is therefore true (a).
Which is precisely why people aren't being criminally tried for these issues, but are instead being dragged in front of the quasi-judicial bodies of the human rights commissions.
See my aside. The CHRC has successfully upheld the law in probably the vast majority of cases, people are accused of he said/she said crimes all the time and have to pay huge legal fees to avoid prosecution, so while this particular application of the law is flawed, it does not make the idea of prosecuting hate speech inherently flawed.
It is not discrimination to refuse to print propaganda you disagree with. It is not discrimination to refuse to rent your hall to a couple that are in blatant disregard to your sinceerely held religious beliefs.
If anything, the people being discriminated against here are the ones being hauled before the pseudo-we-couldn't-get-a-real-criminal-charge-to-stick-but-we-want-to-punish-you-so-we'll-do-this-instead joke of a "commission".
It is blatant, repeated, and explicit discrimination and violations of individuals freedom of speech in the name of anti-hate speech.
How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"
And what if they got rid of the CHRC and instead had it entirely within the criminal code. That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"
That's not at all in line with the instances he suggested. The last example (which I'm assuming is the one you were referring to) was a man who had done printing services for gay people in the past, but refused to print for a LGBT interest group due to their political views conflicting with his religious views. That's as much discrimination, as a catholic printer refusing to print pro-abortion material.
EDIT:
Quote from "Mikeg542" »
And what if they got rid of the CHRC and instead had it entirely within the criminal code. That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
I would argue yes. The US grants you pretty broad speech rights, and will only gag speech if it presents a clear and present danger (ala, actively inciting a riot, shouting fire in a crowded theater, and naturally symbolic speech that violates other laws, like murder). Seems to work out okay. We have issues with racism, but they really have little to do with the sort of groups aforementioned. They're pretty largely marginalized by society. Society in general hasn't got the stomach for indecency like that.
Would you mind finding me where in the US law is states what are adequate grounds for refusal of service? I'm having trouble finding it myself.
I'm just wondering because: My Dad is blind and has a guide dog. He has a card that states it is illegal to refuse the dog entry into any public venue (restaurant, store etc.) If someone had a religious belief in canada or the US that dogs were unclean, bad luck, evil whatever, they are in no way within their rights to refuse him entry/service. (Not to say gay people are like dogs, but laws in both countries restrict reasons for refusal of service).
See my aside. The CHRC has successfully upheld the law in probably the vast majority of cases, people are accused of he said/she said crimes all the time and have to pay huge legal fees to avoid prosecution, so while this particular application of the law is flawed, it does not make the idea of prosecuting hate speech inherently flawed.
If the current law is flawed and a quasi-judicial body must be convened in order to facilitate application of the law, then it's clear that at this present time, thought on the subject by many Enlightenment philosophers, as well as prevailing thought on the basic concepts of freedom - to include freedom of speech and expression - are still held valid.
In the United States, we don't take and criminalize free speech. We allow civil courts to handle it, because the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that you can't simply stifle free speech because they said something you didn't like.
Now obviously, there are limits to free speech in the United States. You can't scream out fire in a crowded theatre, you can't can't threaten to kill the President or blow up a school.
How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"
Just because someone says, "I hate ******s!" doesn't mean he's breaking the law. If he says it, fine. When he puts that hatred into physical application and denies a minority, say, service at a gas station or life-saving EMT work, then that is where the illegal discrimination occurs. We don't penalize you for saying something. We do penalize you when you act on what you say.
And what if they got rid of the CHRC and instead had it entirely within the criminal code. That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
Why did you need a quasi-judicial body to enforce the law anyways? Why not put it in the criminal code to begin with?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Would you mind finding me where in the US law is states what are adequate grounds for refusal of service? I'm having trouble finding it myself.
I'm just wondering because: My Dad is blind and has a guide dog. He has a card that states it is illegal to refuse the dog entry into any public venue (restaurant, store etc.) If someone had a religious belief in canada or the US that dogs were unclean, bad luck, evil whatever, they are in no way within their rights to refuse him entry/service. (Not to say gay people are like dogs, but laws in both countries restrict reasons for refusal of service).
I have to leave shortly, so I wasn't able to find the exact law, but this link to a justice department page might prove helpful/informative: www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
The same as in Canada appears to hold true in the states
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
If the current law is flawed and a quasi-judicial body must be convened in order to facilitate application of the law, then it's clear that at this present time, thought on the subject by many Enlightenment philosophers, as well as prevailing thought on the basic concepts of freedom - to include freedom of speech and expression - are still held valid.
In the United States, we don't take and criminalize free speech. We allow civil courts to handle it, because the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that you can't simply stifle free speech because they said something you didn't like.
Now obviously, there are limits to free speech in the United States. You can't scream out fire in a crowded theatre, you can't can't threaten to kill the President or blow up a school.
Just because someone says, "I hate ******s!" doesn't mean he's breaking the law. If he says it, fine. When he puts that hatred into physical application and denies a minority, say, service at a gas station or life-saving EMT work, then that is where the illegal discrimination occurs. We don't penalize you for saying something. We do penalize you when you act on what you say.
Why did you need a quasi-judicial body to enforce the law anyways? Why not put it in the criminal code to begin with?
I said "How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"" because BLatch stated refusing service to someone because they are Gay and you are Christian is not discrimination. This has nothing to do with what was said, but what was actually done. I read the argument by the printer who refused and his response was along the lines of 'why can't they get it printed somewhere else?' which brought about my satirical comment.
I'm still just getting a lot of implying of "Since it's not hurting/happening to me, it clearly isn't wrong".
Saying ""I hate ******s!"" probably wouldn't go anywhere. Saying it to a gathered public with loudspeakers and signs would possibly be a different matter.
And I'll repeat again:
That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
First of all http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Democrats lead republicans in registered voters, both in those with official party affiliations and when counting independents that "lean" one way or another. Sorry if reality has a liberal bias, but republican do not, in any way, represent a majority of the population (neither party does), and they do not outnumber democrats, certainly not 2:1. Republicans make up a little over 1/4 of the population, and democrats a little over 1/3, with independents not breaking decisively in favor of either party (though slightly in favor of dems).
This is the graph I was referencing. I should have said Conservatives outnumber Liberals 2:1, so I misspoke.
Secondly, it sounds like you are afraid that someone might commit a violent crime and get it "wrongfully" in your eyes rolled into hate crimes, to appease some special interest. Don't be so scared bro. There is no evidence that regular old murderers are being charged with hate crimes, or that bias fueled black on white crime is not being properly prosecuted (pro-tip, hate crime law has been applied to blacks who attack whites for racial reasons). Hate crimes are very specifically defined, and can be easily merged with terrorism laws. An overzealous prosecute or incompetent judge may incorrectly apply hate crime law, but the same can be said for terrorism, or murder (prosecutors often push for 1st degree even when its clearly second degree, or even manslaughter). We have an appeals system for that sort of mistake, and a jury can always find not guilty if they are not convinced the law applies. If you are so scared of prosecutors screwing up well thought out hate crime laws, you should be against terrorism laws, and really criminal laws in general. As that is absurd, the more likely cause of your antipathy towards them is either a worry that they will somehow be applied to you, or that you dislike the fact that vulnerable groups that you do not like are being protected.
I don't even know what you are trying to get at in this paragraph. Just look at the Trayvon Martin case - clearly not a hate crime, but that isn't stopping the Department of (Social) Justice from investigating whether or not it is a hate crime...which would also open Zimmerman up to the death penalty in a Federal court.
Lets also look at the 2008 voter intimidation case involving the NBPP. Not only were hate crime charges NOT included in the case against the NBPP, pretty much every charge was dropped once Obama took office and Holder became the AG.
Nobody is going to lock you up for hating gays or being an idiot, so don't worry. You are perfectly free to express your beliefs, just don't kick anybody's ass for being black or gay and you'll be fine. Unless you want people to be able to terrorize minorities, in which case I understand your problem with the law. Honestly though, I'd think you would have more sympathy for those hated groups who are marginalized in society, being a brony and all.
You don't know me very well. Ask any of the lefties in this thread, since they've gotten a chance to see my views on gays and minorities in recent threads. I'm a believer in the goal of a truly equal and colorblind society. I have dated more black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women than white women. My best friend is black, and I know more than my fair share of gays. I do have sympathy for minorities, and most of my friends are minorities in one way or another. But I will never support anything that violates the Constitution - and some of the laws being suggested in this thread are blatant violations of the 1st Amendment.
And thanks for calling me an idiot when you clearly don't know me or my views. I do so enjoy personal attacks from people who know nothing about me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
It's not a slippery-slope argument, because I'm not claiming that hate speech laws are going to lead to your beliefs being illegal. I'm simply pointing out how bad it would be if your beliefs were made illegal to demonstrate the importance of freedom of thought and expression.
The problem is that "hate speech laws" -> "your beliefs made illegal" doesn't flow at all. It's like talking about enforcing laws regarding indecency, then going off about making all women wear burqas or something. It's a slippery slope even to talk about something like beliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc being policed in the context of hate speech laws.
Considering you can't even tell us what is and is not hate speech, I'm gonna say it's pretty far from clear.
I'm just not going to bother doing the equivalent of teaching a class when people can read handily linked material. All it does is add more work for me and muddy up the thread.
Harm doesn't come from being offended, it comes from being offended a lot?
Constant offense could easily be considered psychological abuse.
Maybe some of their opinion programming. I am not a frequent Fox viewer, but their main news programming seems as dry as anyone else's to me. But getting rid of a few fringe Fox programs doesn't change much about whatever media bias against minorities you are claiming exists.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into the subject of media bias in this thread, because doing so would just go off topic even more than I sometimes take threads. Suffice to say, though, Fox contains speech that both wouldn't be allowed in Canada and speech that just plain doesn't exist in Canada because of cultural differences.
There's actually a pretty good Canadian documentary about it here. One of my favourite quotes is, "The more you watch Fox News, the stupider you get." Which they actually demonstrated (as well as pointing out that Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc simply make things up and try to pass them off as established fact, which is seen as a pretty big no-no up here).
Someone who, in addition to saying something horrific, actually orders other people to commit violence is suborning a crime and is already guilty under pre-existing law.
Again, I assume this is why it's seen as perfectly okay for people to bully LGBT people into committing suicide?
And note the distinction: someone who says that God hates homosexuals is not suborning a crime, yet is still guilty of hate speech under your conception.
No, but you might be able to make a case for "god hates ****, so everyone go out and hate them" being hate speech.
However, one might also deny the Holocaust because one has carefully examined Irving's work and found it to be historically meritorious. Thus it is simply a logical fallacy to claim "Holocaust denial iff anti-Semitism," since there is a counterexample to the equivalence.
The problem is that David Irving is pretty unambiguously racist and anti-Semitic (such gems as Jewish people being his "traditional enemy" for instance). His work isn't historically meritorious, and from my understanding of it you might as well be trying to argue the "merits" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or something. And yes, I am directly comparing Irving's work to the Protocols, because of the sheer nature of Holocaust denial and what manner of hate it ultimately perpetuates. It incites hatred against Jewish people and not only denies the fact that very real genocide was attempted against them, but tries to make it seem like a conspiracy on the Jewish people's part. There's no way in which Holocaust denial isn't hate speech, which is why it's not allowed in Canada or many European nations.
What the hell makes you think that people need your protection from this ideology? Were you protected from it? How did you come to your conclusions about it?
Being that I was born after 1982, yes, I was protected from Nazis spewing their hate speech everywhere. But that doesn't mean I was protected from the very concept of Nazism. I have access to any amount of education and resources about it, more than enough to come to my own conclusions.
A person whose arguments have no substance doesn't sound reasonable.
Sophism is certainly a thing (and for all the pedants out there: I'm using the modern definition).
It wasn't long ago that Copernicus was considered a heretic, and his words were banned by the Catholic Church because of such heresy.
It wasn't long ago that Galileo found himself on the same end with Copernicus over his own scientific theories.
It wasn't long ago when in German culture one could not speak favorably of or act in support of Jews, Gypsies, and other minority groups because the ruling establishment made it verboten.
None of which is remotely comparable to hate crime laws. It only appears that way due to the almost religious view America has of its concept of free speech, under which any limitation on one's speech is lumped into the same overall category and is thus seen as interchangeable.
We can say it's all for tolerance, but the reality is censorship in any way of free speech is an assault not just on freedom, but of tolerance.
And yet intolerance is far more common (on the whole) in America than Canada.
The United States fought to through off the yoke of tyranny.
Meanwhile, Canada asked for its freedom and was granted it.
Sure, you have limits: you can't, for instance, commit sedition.
Aha, so there are limits on free speech in America, at least as far as not doing what the government doesn't want you to do. You can't use your free speech to incite discontent against the government, apparently.
The way Teia was describing it earlier, this sounded like a law that was designed to combat racism in general.
If by "combat racism in general" you mean "prevent people from inciting hatred or promoting genocide of identifiable groups" then sure, I guess. Say what you want, but at least represent my position accurately.
The problem is that "hate speech laws" -> "your beliefs made illegal" doesn't flow at all. It's like talking about enforcing laws regarding indecency, then going off about making all women wear burqas or something. It's a slippery slope even to talk about something like beliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc being policed in the context of hate speech laws.
That's what hate speech laws are. They make it illegal to express certain beliefs.
I'm just not going to bother doing the equivalent of teaching a class when people can read handily linked material. All it does is add more work for me and muddy up the thread.
To quote you earlier in this thread:
This one gets a bit stickier because the video makes claims which could be defended as "intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group" (Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada), in this case relating to the Tea Party's racism. There are implications of internalized homophobia within black conservatives, which seems fair enough of them to publish. Some of the more... graphic statements may or may not count as hate speech—I'm not exactly what you'd call a judge, after all.
In other words, Canada is a country where you can't even tell whether the things you might say are criminal until a government bureaucrat tells you they are. In a free society, there should be no doubt in one's mind whether stating their beliefs is a criminal act.
Constant offense could easily be considered psychological abuse.
If someone is offended by my saying that the concept of a deity is foolish, am I guilty of psychological abuse? Or just if I say it a lot?
EDIT:
Aha, so there are limits on free speech in America, at least as far as not doing what the government doesn't want you to do. You can't use your free speech to incite discontent against the government, apparently.
Actually, you're quite free to make seditious statements in America. It wasn't always the case, but the Supreme Court upheld that right many years ago. What you can't do, however, is commit seditious conspiracy, in which you are actively planning to attempt to overthrow the government. A very different thing.
The problem is that "hate speech laws" -> "your beliefs made illegal" doesn't flow at all. It's like talking about enforcing laws regarding indecency, then going off about making all women wear burqas or something. It's a slippery slope even to talk about something like beliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc being policed in the context of hate speech laws.
"You can think about how much you love other men all you want. You just aren't allowed to go and host a rally or event announcing this love."
A restriction on expression is a de facto restriction on conscience. The casuistry [you] are using to worm out of this unpleasant reality is exactly the same casuistry used by censorious bigots to sweep homosexuality and other "unapproved" lifestyles under the rug. You may claim you have very different intentions than these people, you may even be right, but intentions matter remarkably little in the long run when it comes to law and policy.
"A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." Justice Ginsburg.
I'm just not going to bother doing the equivalent of teaching a class when people can read handily linked material. All it does is add more work for me and muddy up the thread.
You've used this phrase at least twice now, and it reveals a fundamental weakness in your position that others have already pointed out but that you've never really responded to. Because you could also reasonably make a case quite the opposite way. So who decides the case?
Well, that was easy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Again, I assume this is why it's seen as perfectly okay for people to bully LGBT people into committing suicide?
Because those people don't...you know...face prosecution and jail time as a result or anything /sarcasm
Quote from "Teia Rabishu" »
And yet intolerance is far more common (on the whole) in America than Canada.
Once again, are we talking visible intolerance, or actual intolerance. Frankly, if someone was the dictator of a nation of racists, and used martial law to enforce a anti-hate speech laws, he could claim that his nation was 100% tolerant, regardless of the people's genuine beliefs. It seems silly to assume that just because being intolerant is illegal that suddenly people are more tolerant.
Quote from "Teia Rabishu" »
Meanwhile, Canada asked for its freedom and was granted it.
Tthis is true, but it took about an extra century and a half (assuming I have the date of Canadian independence correct at 1931) /tangent
Quote from "Teia Rabishu" »
If by "combat racism in general" you mean "prevent people from inciting hatred or promoting genocide of identifiable groups" then sure, I guess. Say what you want, but at least represent my position accurately.
As unlikely as you may to believe this, I legitimately believed that what I had written was your position. Your prior comments led me to believe that the law applied to racial slurs as well. I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding.
@Mikeg542:
Quote from "Quirkiness101 a few posts ago" »
Quote from "Mikeg542" »
How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"
That's not at all in line with the instances he suggested. The last example (which I'm assuming is the one you were referring to) was a man who had done printing services for gay people in the past, but refused to print for a LGBT interest group due to their political views conflicting with his religious views. That's as much discrimination, as a catholic printer refusing to print pro-abortion material.
Quote from "Mikeg542" »
And what if they got rid of the CHRC and instead had it entirely within the criminal code. That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
I would argue yes. The US grants you pretty broad speech rights, and will only gag speech if it presents a clear and present danger (ala, actively inciting a riot, shouting fire in a crowded theater, and naturally symbolic speech that violates other laws, like murder). Seems to work out okay. We have issues with racism, but they really have little to do with the sort of groups aforementioned. They're pretty largely marginalized by society. Society in general hasn't got the stomach for indecency like that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
The problem is that "hate speech laws" -> "your beliefs made illegal" doesn't flow at all. It's like talking about enforcing laws regarding indecency, then going off about making all women wear burqas or something. It's a slippery slope even to talk about something like beliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc being policed in the context of hate speech laws.
Mmmmm, I beg to differ. I'll point to Germany for this one.
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("Sedition") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
"I think all Jews are maggots." Great, I just landed my ass in German jail!
Constant offense could easily be considered psychological abuse.
I was bullied in school. I was picked on for having an Irish accent. I was mistreated for my acne, and the fact I was socially awkward. I didn't run to the teachers, I didn't pine for attention from legislatures to make my life easier. I threw it back at them. I even popped one in the nose for going further than normal. You'd be surprised what happens when you show a little backbone.
The truth is, the people committing suicide over words? The people running to government organizations, sniffling and saying, "My feelings were hurt!" are the ones who need help. Those of us who stand up and say, "Okay, just words. You're just ignorant," don't care about what's said. Sticks and stones, etc.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into the subject of media bias in this thread, because doing so would just go off topic even more than I sometimes take threads. Suffice to say, though, Fox contains speech that both wouldn't be allowed in Canada and speech that just plain doesn't exist in Canada because of cultural differences.
Would Al Sharpton's rants on white people on his CNN program be allowed, I wonder? And what speech on Fox wouldn't be allowed in Canada?
Again, I assume this is why it's seen as perfectly okay for people to bully LGBT people into committing suicide?
Show me the law that was broken.
No, but you might be able to make a case for "god hates ****, so everyone go out and hate them" being hate speech.
Supreme Court heard it and agreed. It's Constitutionally-protected speech.
You wouldn't think Canada's a first-world country given all the cries of thoughtcrime and so on in this thread.
Russia and China are pretty damn close to first-world countries, and they have plenty of thought police running around.
None of which is remotely comparable to hate crime laws. It only appears that way due to the almost religious view America has of its concept of free speech, under which any limitation on one's speech is lumped into the same overall category and is thus seen as interchangeable.
I was making a point about censorship in general, not hate crimes laws. And yes, we have a very religious view on our Constitution, because it is what has kept us going when the government wants to shut down our freedom of speech.
And yet intolerance is far more common (on the whole) in America than Canada.
You can't claim that now, since any intolerance is kept hidden because you could go to jail for hurting someone's feelings.
Meanwhile, Canada asked for its freedom and was granted it.
Colonists didn't like being told to sit down, pay large amounts of taxes, quarter troops they didn't even want, and have the basic freedoms we take for granted nowadays trampled over by King George. We tried asking. George said no. So we said we'd do it one way or the other.
Aha, so there are limits on free speech in America, at least as far as not doing what the government doesn't want you to do. You can't use your free speech to incite discontent against the government, apparently.
That was the case until 1920, when the act was repealed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
I wasn't advocating what they are doing is correct. I was stating that with their past/history, it seems unsurprising that they would take hate speech laws a little further than most.
Again, I assume this is why it's seen as perfectly okay for people to bully LGBT people into committing suicide?
I'm just astonished by the things neoliberals need to tell themselves in order to keep their blood up. Good lord, they threw the guy in jail, fined him, and placed him on a long probation. What do you want, a drawing and quartering?
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
No, but you might be able to make a case for "god hates ****, so everyone go out and hate them" being hate speech.
I don't see an argument here, so I'll reply as follows: since there is no such thing as hate speech, you could not make any such case, any more than you could make a case for unicorns farting rainbows. See how useful that was to advancing the argument? Why, it looks like it's over and I win.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
The problem is that David Irving is pretty unambiguously racist and anti-Semitic (such gems as Jewish people being his "traditional enemy" for instance).
Oh, he's definitely anti-Semitic. In fact, ideologically he's a complete nutter, but he's still the world's foremost expert on the Third Reich. However, the fact that he's anti-Semitic does not mean that readers of his work thereby become infected with anti-Semitism.
(Note that you've attempted to shift the field of argument to slinging ad hominems at Irving -- an argument that is actually winnable for you, easy target that he is -- rather than addressing the question of whether someone is entitled to hear his claims and evaluate them on the merits.)
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
His work isn't historically meritorious.
How have you reached this conclusion? Is it because you were allowed to read his works? Could you ever have rationally reached this conclusion if he was silenced and his views were not published?
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Sophism is certainly a thing (and for all the pedants out there: I'm using the modern definition).
Er, I was actually being quite straightforward. It is the case that, at least on my hearing, a person whose arguments have no substance does not sound reasonable. That is one of the metrics I personally use to gauge reasonability. Adding "I'm not racist, but" to the front of statements has never served to make those statements more reasonable to the hearing of intelligent people. Your insinuation that the non-arguments of bigots are slipping through the cracks and being accepted as sound and promulgated purely because of phrases like that is just not correct.
I see far more instances of people being incorrectly accused of bigotry than I do bigots getting away with slipshod arguments.
But as you are an avid practitioner of sophistry, I suppose I'll defer to your expert analysis. It's not an important thread of conversation anyway.
I said I would get around to the Orwellian angle, so here goes. I dare say that a ban on Holocaust denial is not only Orwellian, it's quintessentially Orwellian.
Control of history is one of the most crucial ways that INGSOC is able to retain its unchecked power over Oceania. It is able to repeatedly change the people's comprehension of history and use that to expand its power. One day Eastasia is its enemy, the next day, they are allies. This maintains the state of perpetual war that it requires. Another example is the way that people are "erased" from existence.
So what we're talking about with a ban on Holocaust denial is a government that has an "official" version of history. Not one that it tentatively clings to, not one constantly revised version that is taught in schools, but an actual, official version of history to which all must yield.
Of course there's no better way to implement this than to begin with Holocaust denial. Consensus is simply so overwhelming that there's hardly a soul to challenge it.
But for the life of me, I can think of no good reason to ban it. Our understanding of history is never etched in stone. Historical inquiry is even more tentative than the hard sciences (which are themselves tentative).
A government, therefore, which treads onto this ground should walk on their tippy-toes. Will they also adopt an official version of history on the Armenian genocide? If not, why not? Will they also adopt an official version of history on the conflict between Israel and Palestine? If not, why not?
Who decides when the evidence is overwhelming enough? Do the person/people making this decision have an historical bias of their own? How will historical inquiry be stifled by government mandates?
When you accept the principle that a government can write its own versions of history, where does it end? May I also remind you: slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
More generally, a government should never make a law directly asserting a matter of fact. At best, it's silly, as in the Indiana Pi Bill. At worst, it's a lethal tragedy, as in Lysenkoism. It's also, when you analyze the situation, what really got Galileo into trouble. But however it turns out, it's simply not what a government is intended to do, or even qualified to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
More generally, a government should never make a law directly asserting a matter of fact. At best, it's silly, as in the Indiana Pi Bill. At worst, it's a lethal tragedy, as in Lysenkoism. It's also, when you analyze the situation, what really got Galileo into trouble. But however it turns out, it's simply not what a government is intended to do, or even qualified to do.
Yeah, I don't think they should legislate this any more than they would legislate a matter of physics or biology.
I'm just not going to bother doing the equivalent of teaching a class when people can read handily linked material. All it does is add more work for me and muddy up the thread.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into the subject of media bias in this thread, because doing so would just go off topic even more than I sometimes take threads. Suffice to say, though, Fox contains speech that both wouldn't be allowed in Canada and speech that just plain doesn't exist in Canada because of cultural differences.
There's actually a pretty good Canadian documentary about it here. One of my favourite quotes is, "The more you watch Fox News, the stupider you get." Which they actually demonstrated (as well as pointing out that Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc simply make things up and try to pass them off as established fact, which is seen as a pretty big no-no up here).
None of which is remotely comparable to hate crime laws. It only appears that way due to the almost religious view America has of its concept of free speech, under which any limitation on one's speech is lumped into the same overall category and is thus seen as interchangeable.
And yet intolerance is far more common (on the whole) in America than Canada.
If by "combat racism in general" you mean "prevent people from inciting hatred or promoting genocide of identifiable groups" then sure, I guess. Say what you want, but at least represent my position accurately.
Wow, this is incredible. What we have here is a shining beacon of arrogance and itellectual elitism. Just breathtaking.
In the words of Malcolm Muggeridge, "We have educated ourselves into imbecility." When we argue against simple logic just because we have learned to or it furthers our own personal crusade.
The fact is, no one is 100% correct about anything. Absolutes have to be grounded in something. Is that something going to be a government? I hope not. A single person? Probably a bad idea. Ideas are subjective, one could say that God has the ultimate say and another group might truly think that man has the ultimate say. The only thing that can be done is let man be free to share his ideas and be a grownup about ideas you disagree with.
Wow, this is incredible. What we have here is a shining beacon of arrogance and itellectual elitism. Just breathtaking.
In the words of Malcolm Muggeridge, "We have educated ourselves into imbecility." When we argue against simple logic just because we have learned to or it furthers our own personal crusade.
The fact is, no one is 100% correct about anything. Absolutes have to be grounded in something. Is that something going to be a government? I hope not. A single person? Probably a bad idea. Ideas are subjective, one could say that God has the ultimate say and another group might truly think that man has the ultimate say. The only thing that can be done is let man be free to share his ideas and be a grownup about ideas you disagree with.
None of this, and I mean absolutely not a single word written here, is relevant. Most of the people in this thread have actually created a gigantic red herring about the issue of freedom of speech.
I think that every single American, since apparently all of us religiously agree that Freedom of Speech is a universal human right (like Democracy!), in this thread has so far failed to understand what their burden is in this thread.
In order to prove that we should not regulate hate speech you must do one of either of two things:
1. Prove there is a benefit to hate speech that outweighs its negatives (no one has yet taken up this position.)
or
2. Provide demonstrable proof that limiting hate speech would actually lead to something that is demonstrably bad.
Most people in this thread have just skipped the "demonstrate" part and have gone "that's not freedom of ALL speech so ALL freedom of speech is threatened!" which is a logical fallacy. Understand what your burden of proof is, then come back to argue.
One more thing: Unwillingness to read evidence in support of the other side is outstandingly hypocritical. What is the point of doing evidence based research if it is just going to be hand-waved away? Yes, this applies to both sides equally.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
1. Prove there is a benefit to hate speech that outweighs its negatives (no one has yet taken up this position.)
or
On the contrary that's exactly the position I've been arguing. That it's better that hatred and bigotry are exposed to public scrutiny and the people responsible ostracized, than to ban such intolerance, and simply limit it the individual level where society will fail to notice it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
That's what hate speech laws are. They make it illegal to express certain beliefs.
That's like saying laws regarding assault (as distinct from battery) mean you can't be hard on people, or something.
If someone is offended by my saying that the concept of a deity is foolish, am I guilty of psychological abuse? Or just if I say it a lot?
I dunno. Are you and others hammering it into that person day after day, week after week, year after year, creating a hostile and oppressive environment for that person?
And if you think magnitude doesn't matter here, I remind you that lighting a candle is legal, but arson is very much illegal, even though both are nothing more than lighting something on fire.
Actually, you're quite free to make seditious statements in America. It wasn't always the case, but the Supreme Court upheld that right many years ago.
Because those people don't...you know...face prosecution and jail time as a result or anything /sarcasm
In some places in America? No, they don't. The prevailing attitude is like I've seen in this thread, absolving the bullies of responsibility for the outcome of their actions by way of, "Well, words are just words, so it's not your fault." It's sickening, but it does happen.
Once again, are we talking visible intolerance, or actual intolerance.
Cutting down on the former means the latter necessarily decreases over time because the message of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred can't be spread as easily.
Tthis is true, but it took about an extra century and a half (assuming I have the date of Canadian independence correct at 1931) /tangent
During which time, our treatment wasn't what you'd call onerous or anything. Really, America is like the rebellious teen who shouts "I don't need you or your rules!" to their parents and moves out at 16, while Canada's like America's obedient sibling who follows instructions then moves out a few years later.
Cultural differences between Canada and America are staggering once you actually look at them, and they often stem from America's obsession with the concept of freedom above all other things, while Canada acknowledges that absolute freedom can in some cases be harmful. Also Americans place a much higher emphasis on being confrontational and so on. It's actually kind of interesting to examine, at least outside of cases where one's locking horns with the other ideology directly.
As unlikely as you may to believe this, I legitimately believed that what I had written was your position. Your prior comments led me to believe that the law applied to racial slurs as well. I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding.
Mmmmm, I beg to differ. I'll point to Germany for this one.
And I point to Canada. I'm not arguing specifically in favour of Germany or anything, so I've really nothing else to say about it.
I was bullied in school. I was picked on for having an Irish accent. I was mistreated for my acne, and the fact I was socially awkward.
Do you believe that any of this is remotely comparable to the treatment people get in the worst parts of America for being racial minorities, LGBT, etc?
I even popped one in the nose for going further than normal. You'd be surprised what happens when you show a little backbone.
1) Your experiences are not everyone's experiences. Not everyone can do what you did. Don't erase others' struggles and pain by acting like they are and can.
2) Not everyone on the receiving end of bullying has the agency to act out at their tormentors. In some areas of America, if a bullied student employs physical self-defense like you described, they could realistically be suspended or worse.
The truth is, the people committing suicide over words? The people running to government organizations, sniffling and saying, "My feelings were hurt!" are the ones who need help. Those of us who stand up and say, "Okay, just words. You're just ignorant," don't care about what's said. Sticks and stones, etc.
So you're blaming them for committing suicide. You're basically saying that they were too weak. I'm glad you were able to overcome your comparatively minor bullying, but the sheer level of victim-blaming you're engaging in here is disgusting.
Would Al Sharpton's rants on white people on his CNN program be allowed, I wonder? And what speech on Fox wouldn't be allowed in Canada?
Sharpton's rants probably wouldn't. As for Fox, a lot of the O'Reilly and Coulter type wouldn't fly for various reasons, both for the occasional bit of hate speech and for the fact that they simply make things up and try to pass them off as fact (the video I linked earlier in the thread shows a Canadian view of the political media environment in America, and the tone is decidedly negative). The latter goes a little bit above and beyond the concept of hate speech, but the result is that media in Canada and media in America are very, very different things.
Supreme Court heard it and agreed. It's Constitutionally-protected speech.
In Canada or America? Because that distinction is basically what this thread is about.
Russia and China are pretty damn close to first-world countries, and they have plenty of thought police running around.
I'm not arguing in favour of the Russian or Chinese system.
And yes, we have a very religious view on our Constitution, because it is what has kept us going when the government wants to shut down our freedom of speech.
The problem with a religious view of your constitution is that it short-circuits rational thought. Refer to numerous examples in this thread of people treating any limitation on free speech as totally interchangeable, or of people instantly leaping to the conclusion that Canada must be some kind of Orwellian state where expressing dissenting opinions is illegal, among other poorly reasoned arguments. This kind of thing wouldn't happen if people took a step back and looked at the issues objectively.
You can't claim that now, since any intolerance is kept hidden because you could go to jail for hurting someone's feelings.
No you can't. You're either making things up or taking things out of context.
I'm just astonished by the things neoliberals need to tell themselves in order to keep their blood up. Good lord, they threw the guy in jail, fined him, and placed him on a long probation. What do you want, a drawing and quartering?
You think I'm talking about one single example here? The problem is epidemic.
However, the fact that he's anti-Semitic does not mean that readers of his work thereby become infected with anti-Semitism.
Believers of it are.
(Note that you've attempted to shift the field of argument to slinging ad hominems at Irving -- an argument that is actually winnable for you, easy target that he is -- rather than addressing the question of whether someone is entitled to hear his claims and evaluate them on the merits.)
There's a difference between someone looking up him and his work (as I was obviously able to) and him speaking them publicly, which he was barred from doing up here. I don't know why this kind of distinction seems so hard to impart in this thread.
Your insinuation that the non-arguments of bigots are slipping through the cracks and being accepted as sound and promulgated purely because of phrases like that is just not correct.
But it's the reality of the situation, given how many people in America publish all manner of indictment of, say, LGBT people and see it reach wide audiences, who believe it as reasonable and factual. These sophists are bigots of the highest order, and their arguments are deeply flawed... yet there are many who accept them and see those people as being anything but bigots. They see those who cry out against bigotry as being the "real" bigots.
So what we're talking about with a ban on Holocaust denial is a government that has an "official" version of history.
This might have merit if the issue were in any way open to debate, but the fact of the matter is that the Holocaust so very obviously did happen that the only arguments against it slip into hate speech territory by their very structure and aim.
But even so, under Canada's hate speech laws, someone who publishes a Holocaust denial that is demonstrably true wouldn't be convicted of hate crime (both because that's one of the ways in which someone is found not guilty, and because Canada doesn't to my knowledge have specific Holocaust denial legislation, merely hate crime legislation). Just because it's impossible doesn't mean the law would protect someone who did kick reason to the curb and make the impossible possible.
Most people in this thread have just skipped the "demonstrate" part and have gone "that's not freedom of ALL speech so ALL freedom of speech is threatened!" which is a logical fallacy.
This is a danger of people taking a religious view of their constitution/bill of rights. They see such things as being so self-evident that they honestly can't fathom it being reasonably challenged. Hence many of the replies in this thread.
I mean, I'm far from perfect, myself, but I'd like to think I'm at least not falling into that trap.
Most people in this thread have just skipped the "demonstrate" part and have gone "that's not freedom of ALL speech so ALL freedom of speech is threatened!" which is a logical fallacy. Understand what your burden of proof is, then come back to argue.
It's not a logical fallacy, its the truth. Freedom of speech doesn't exist if it's not freedom to express all ideas. IF it's, instead, freedom to express only ideas that the government has deemed socially acceptable, then it is in fact the exact opposite of freedom of speech.
A government prohibition on hate speech means you do not have freedom of speech.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Which is precisely why people aren't being criminally tried for these issues, but are instead being dragged in front of the quasi-judicial bodies of the human rights commissions.
How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"
And what if they got rid of the CHRC and instead had it entirely within the criminal code. That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
That's not at all in line with the instances he suggested. The last example (which I'm assuming is the one you were referring to) was a man who had done printing services for gay people in the past, but refused to print for a LGBT interest group due to their political views conflicting with his religious views. That's as much discrimination, as a catholic printer refusing to print pro-abortion material.
EDIT:
I would argue yes. The US grants you pretty broad speech rights, and will only gag speech if it presents a clear and present danger (ala, actively inciting a riot, shouting fire in a crowded theater, and naturally symbolic speech that violates other laws, like murder). Seems to work out okay. We have issues with racism, but they really have little to do with the sort of groups aforementioned. They're pretty largely marginalized by society. Society in general hasn't got the stomach for indecency like that.
I'm just wondering because: My Dad is blind and has a guide dog. He has a card that states it is illegal to refuse the dog entry into any public venue (restaurant, store etc.) If someone had a religious belief in canada or the US that dogs were unclean, bad luck, evil whatever, they are in no way within their rights to refuse him entry/service. (Not to say gay people are like dogs, but laws in both countries restrict reasons for refusal of service).
If the current law is flawed and a quasi-judicial body must be convened in order to facilitate application of the law, then it's clear that at this present time, thought on the subject by many Enlightenment philosophers, as well as prevailing thought on the basic concepts of freedom - to include freedom of speech and expression - are still held valid.
In the United States, we don't take and criminalize free speech. We allow civil courts to handle it, because the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that you can't simply stifle free speech because they said something you didn't like.
Now obviously, there are limits to free speech in the United States. You can't scream out fire in a crowded theatre, you can't can't threaten to kill the President or blow up a school.
Just because someone says, "I hate ******s!" doesn't mean he's breaking the law. If he says it, fine. When he puts that hatred into physical application and denies a minority, say, service at a gas station or life-saving EMT work, then that is where the illegal discrimination occurs. We don't penalize you for saying something. We do penalize you when you act on what you say.
Why did you need a quasi-judicial body to enforce the law anyways? Why not put it in the criminal code to begin with?
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I have to leave shortly, so I wasn't able to find the exact law, but this link to a justice department page might prove helpful/informative:
www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
The same as in Canada appears to hold true in the states
I said "How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"" because BLatch stated refusing service to someone because they are Gay and you are Christian is not discrimination. This has nothing to do with what was said, but what was actually done. I read the argument by the printer who refused and his response was along the lines of 'why can't they get it printed somewhere else?' which brought about my satirical comment.
I'm still just getting a lot of implying of "Since it's not hurting/happening to me, it clearly isn't wrong".
Saying ""I hate ******s!"" probably wouldn't go anywhere. Saying it to a gathered public with loudspeakers and signs would possibly be a different matter.
And I'll repeat again:
That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
This is the graph I was referencing. I should have said Conservatives outnumber Liberals 2:1, so I misspoke.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx
As of January 2012, 40% of Americans identify as Conservative. 35% identify as Moderate. And 21% identify as Liberal.
I don't even know what you are trying to get at in this paragraph. Just look at the Trayvon Martin case - clearly not a hate crime, but that isn't stopping the Department of (Social) Justice from investigating whether or not it is a hate crime...which would also open Zimmerman up to the death penalty in a Federal court.
Lets also look at the 2008 voter intimidation case involving the NBPP. Not only were hate crime charges NOT included in the case against the NBPP, pretty much every charge was dropped once Obama took office and Holder became the AG.
You don't know me very well. Ask any of the lefties in this thread, since they've gotten a chance to see my views on gays and minorities in recent threads. I'm a believer in the goal of a truly equal and colorblind society. I have dated more black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women than white women. My best friend is black, and I know more than my fair share of gays. I do have sympathy for minorities, and most of my friends are minorities in one way or another. But I will never support anything that violates the Constitution - and some of the laws being suggested in this thread are blatant violations of the 1st Amendment.
And thanks for calling me an idiot when you clearly don't know me or my views. I do so enjoy personal attacks from people who know nothing about me.
The problem is that "hate speech laws" -> "your beliefs made illegal" doesn't flow at all. It's like talking about enforcing laws regarding indecency, then going off about making all women wear burqas or something. It's a slippery slope even to talk about something like beliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc being policed in the context of hate speech laws.
I'm just not going to bother doing the equivalent of teaching a class when people can read handily linked material. All it does is add more work for me and muddy up the thread.
Constant offense could easily be considered psychological abuse.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into the subject of media bias in this thread, because doing so would just go off topic even more than I sometimes take threads. Suffice to say, though, Fox contains speech that both wouldn't be allowed in Canada and speech that just plain doesn't exist in Canada because of cultural differences.
There's actually a pretty good Canadian documentary about it here. One of my favourite quotes is, "The more you watch Fox News, the stupider you get." Which they actually demonstrated (as well as pointing out that Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc simply make things up and try to pass them off as established fact, which is seen as a pretty big no-no up here).
Again, I assume this is why it's seen as perfectly okay for people to bully LGBT people into committing suicide?
No, but you might be able to make a case for "god hates ****, so everyone go out and hate them" being hate speech.
The problem is that David Irving is pretty unambiguously racist and anti-Semitic (such gems as Jewish people being his "traditional enemy" for instance). His work isn't historically meritorious, and from my understanding of it you might as well be trying to argue the "merits" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or something. And yes, I am directly comparing Irving's work to the Protocols, because of the sheer nature of Holocaust denial and what manner of hate it ultimately perpetuates. It incites hatred against Jewish people and not only denies the fact that very real genocide was attempted against them, but tries to make it seem like a conspiracy on the Jewish people's part. There's no way in which Holocaust denial isn't hate speech, which is why it's not allowed in Canada or many European nations.
Being that I was born after 1982, yes, I was protected from Nazis spewing their hate speech everywhere. But that doesn't mean I was protected from the very concept of Nazism. I have access to any amount of education and resources about it, more than enough to come to my own conclusions.
Sophism is certainly a thing (and for all the pedants out there: I'm using the modern definition).
You wouldn't think Canada's a first-world country given all the cries of thoughtcrime and so on in this thread.
None of which is remotely comparable to hate crime laws. It only appears that way due to the almost religious view America has of its concept of free speech, under which any limitation on one's speech is lumped into the same overall category and is thus seen as interchangeable.
And yet intolerance is far more common (on the whole) in America than Canada.
Meanwhile, Canada asked for its freedom and was granted it.
Aha, so there are limits on free speech in America, at least as far as not doing what the government doesn't want you to do. You can't use your free speech to incite discontent against the government, apparently.
If by "combat racism in general" you mean "prevent people from inciting hatred or promoting genocide of identifiable groups" then sure, I guess. Say what you want, but at least represent my position accurately.
For one notable difference, the guide dog would be much better received across America than the gay person.
That's what hate speech laws are. They make it illegal to express certain beliefs.
To quote you earlier in this thread:
In other words, Canada is a country where you can't even tell whether the things you might say are criminal until a government bureaucrat tells you they are. In a free society, there should be no doubt in one's mind whether stating their beliefs is a criminal act.
If someone is offended by my saying that the concept of a deity is foolish, am I guilty of psychological abuse? Or just if I say it a lot?
EDIT:
Actually, you're quite free to make seditious statements in America. It wasn't always the case, but the Supreme Court upheld that right many years ago. What you can't do, however, is commit seditious conspiracy, in which you are actively planning to attempt to overthrow the government. A very different thing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because those people don't...you know...face prosecution and jail time as a result or anything /sarcasm
Once again, are we talking visible intolerance, or actual intolerance. Frankly, if someone was the dictator of a nation of racists, and used martial law to enforce a anti-hate speech laws, he could claim that his nation was 100% tolerant, regardless of the people's genuine beliefs. It seems silly to assume that just because being intolerant is illegal that suddenly people are more tolerant.
Tthis is true, but it took about an extra century and a half (assuming I have the date of Canadian independence correct at 1931) /tangent
As unlikely as you may to believe this, I legitimately believed that what I had written was your position. Your prior comments led me to believe that the law applied to racial slurs as well. I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding.
@Mikeg542:
Mmmmm, I beg to differ. I'll point to Germany for this one.
"I think all Jews are maggots." Great, I just landed my ass in German jail!
I was bullied in school. I was picked on for having an Irish accent. I was mistreated for my acne, and the fact I was socially awkward. I didn't run to the teachers, I didn't pine for attention from legislatures to make my life easier. I threw it back at them. I even popped one in the nose for going further than normal. You'd be surprised what happens when you show a little backbone.
The truth is, the people committing suicide over words? The people running to government organizations, sniffling and saying, "My feelings were hurt!" are the ones who need help. Those of us who stand up and say, "Okay, just words. You're just ignorant," don't care about what's said. Sticks and stones, etc.
Would Al Sharpton's rants on white people on his CNN program be allowed, I wonder? And what speech on Fox wouldn't be allowed in Canada?
Show me the law that was broken.
Supreme Court heard it and agreed. It's Constitutionally-protected speech.
Russia and China are pretty damn close to first-world countries, and they have plenty of thought police running around.
I was making a point about censorship in general, not hate crimes laws. And yes, we have a very religious view on our Constitution, because it is what has kept us going when the government wants to shut down our freedom of speech.
You can't claim that now, since any intolerance is kept hidden because you could go to jail for hurting someone's feelings.
Colonists didn't like being told to sit down, pay large amounts of taxes, quarter troops they didn't even want, and have the basic freedoms we take for granted nowadays trampled over by King George. We tried asking. George said no. So we said we'd do it one way or the other.
That was the case until 1920, when the act was repealed.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
They also have a sore past with government censorship and oppression.
I'm just astonished by the things neoliberals need to tell themselves in order to keep their blood up. Good lord, they threw the guy in jail, fined him, and placed him on a long probation. What do you want, a drawing and quartering?
I don't see an argument here, so I'll reply as follows: since there is no such thing as hate speech, you could not make any such case, any more than you could make a case for unicorns farting rainbows. See how useful that was to advancing the argument? Why, it looks like it's over and I win.
Oh, he's definitely anti-Semitic. In fact, ideologically he's a complete nutter, but he's still the world's foremost expert on the Third Reich. However, the fact that he's anti-Semitic does not mean that readers of his work thereby become infected with anti-Semitism.
(Note that you've attempted to shift the field of argument to slinging ad hominems at Irving -- an argument that is actually winnable for you, easy target that he is -- rather than addressing the question of whether someone is entitled to hear his claims and evaluate them on the merits.)
How have you reached this conclusion? Is it because you were allowed to read his works? Could you ever have rationally reached this conclusion if he was silenced and his views were not published?
Er, I was actually being quite straightforward. It is the case that, at least on my hearing, a person whose arguments have no substance does not sound reasonable. That is one of the metrics I personally use to gauge reasonability. Adding "I'm not racist, but" to the front of statements has never served to make those statements more reasonable to the hearing of intelligent people. Your insinuation that the non-arguments of bigots are slipping through the cracks and being accepted as sound and promulgated purely because of phrases like that is just not correct.
I see far more instances of people being incorrectly accused of bigotry than I do bigots getting away with slipshod arguments.
But as you are an avid practitioner of sophistry, I suppose I'll defer to your expert analysis. It's not an important thread of conversation anyway.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Control of history is one of the most crucial ways that INGSOC is able to retain its unchecked power over Oceania. It is able to repeatedly change the people's comprehension of history and use that to expand its power. One day Eastasia is its enemy, the next day, they are allies. This maintains the state of perpetual war that it requires. Another example is the way that people are "erased" from existence.
So what we're talking about with a ban on Holocaust denial is a government that has an "official" version of history. Not one that it tentatively clings to, not one constantly revised version that is taught in schools, but an actual, official version of history to which all must yield.
Of course there's no better way to implement this than to begin with Holocaust denial. Consensus is simply so overwhelming that there's hardly a soul to challenge it.
But for the life of me, I can think of no good reason to ban it. Our understanding of history is never etched in stone. Historical inquiry is even more tentative than the hard sciences (which are themselves tentative).
A government, therefore, which treads onto this ground should walk on their tippy-toes. Will they also adopt an official version of history on the Armenian genocide? If not, why not? Will they also adopt an official version of history on the conflict between Israel and Palestine? If not, why not?
Who decides when the evidence is overwhelming enough? Do the person/people making this decision have an historical bias of their own? How will historical inquiry be stifled by government mandates?
When you accept the principle that a government can write its own versions of history, where does it end? May I also remind you: slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, I don't think they should legislate this any more than they would legislate a matter of physics or biology.
Wow, this is incredible. What we have here is a shining beacon of arrogance and itellectual elitism. Just breathtaking.
In the words of Malcolm Muggeridge, "We have educated ourselves into imbecility." When we argue against simple logic just because we have learned to or it furthers our own personal crusade.
The fact is, no one is 100% correct about anything. Absolutes have to be grounded in something. Is that something going to be a government? I hope not. A single person? Probably a bad idea. Ideas are subjective, one could say that God has the ultimate say and another group might truly think that man has the ultimate say. The only thing that can be done is let man be free to share his ideas and be a grownup about ideas you disagree with.
N/A
Modern:
Grishoalbrand / Grixis Death's Shadow / Jeskai Control / UW Control
None of this, and I mean absolutely not a single word written here, is relevant. Most of the people in this thread have actually created a gigantic red herring about the issue of freedom of speech.
I think that every single American, since apparently all of us religiously agree that Freedom of Speech is a universal human right (like Democracy!), in this thread has so far failed to understand what their burden is in this thread.
In order to prove that we should not regulate hate speech you must do one of either of two things:
1. Prove there is a benefit to hate speech that outweighs its negatives (no one has yet taken up this position.)
or
2. Provide demonstrable proof that limiting hate speech would actually lead to something that is demonstrably bad.
Most people in this thread have just skipped the "demonstrate" part and have gone "that's not freedom of ALL speech so ALL freedom of speech is threatened!" which is a logical fallacy. Understand what your burden of proof is, then come back to argue.
One more thing: Unwillingness to read evidence in support of the other side is outstandingly hypocritical. What is the point of doing evidence based research if it is just going to be hand-waved away? Yes, this applies to both sides equally.
On the contrary that's exactly the position I've been arguing. That it's better that hatred and bigotry are exposed to public scrutiny and the people responsible ostracized, than to ban such intolerance, and simply limit it the individual level where society will fail to notice it.
That's like saying laws regarding assault (as distinct from battery) mean you can't be hard on people, or something.
I dunno. Are you and others hammering it into that person day after day, week after week, year after year, creating a hostile and oppressive environment for that person?
And if you think magnitude doesn't matter here, I remind you that lighting a candle is legal, but arson is very much illegal, even though both are nothing more than lighting something on fire.
Fair enough.
In some places in America? No, they don't. The prevailing attitude is like I've seen in this thread, absolving the bullies of responsibility for the outcome of their actions by way of, "Well, words are just words, so it's not your fault." It's sickening, but it does happen.
Cutting down on the former means the latter necessarily decreases over time because the message of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred can't be spread as easily.
During which time, our treatment wasn't what you'd call onerous or anything. Really, America is like the rebellious teen who shouts "I don't need you or your rules!" to their parents and moves out at 16, while Canada's like America's obedient sibling who follows instructions then moves out a few years later.
Cultural differences between Canada and America are staggering once you actually look at them, and they often stem from America's obsession with the concept of freedom above all other things, while Canada acknowledges that absolute freedom can in some cases be harmful. Also Americans place a much higher emphasis on being confrontational and so on. It's actually kind of interesting to examine, at least outside of cases where one's locking horns with the other ideology directly.
Fair enough. Apology accepted.
And I point to Canada. I'm not arguing specifically in favour of Germany or anything, so I've really nothing else to say about it.
Do you believe that any of this is remotely comparable to the treatment people get in the worst parts of America for being racial minorities, LGBT, etc?
1) Your experiences are not everyone's experiences. Not everyone can do what you did. Don't erase others' struggles and pain by acting like they are and can.
2) Not everyone on the receiving end of bullying has the agency to act out at their tormentors. In some areas of America, if a bullied student employs physical self-defense like you described, they could realistically be suspended or worse.
So you're blaming them for committing suicide. You're basically saying that they were too weak. I'm glad you were able to overcome your comparatively minor bullying, but the sheer level of victim-blaming you're engaging in here is disgusting.
Sharpton's rants probably wouldn't. As for Fox, a lot of the O'Reilly and Coulter type wouldn't fly for various reasons, both for the occasional bit of hate speech and for the fact that they simply make things up and try to pass them off as fact (the video I linked earlier in the thread shows a Canadian view of the political media environment in America, and the tone is decidedly negative). The latter goes a little bit above and beyond the concept of hate speech, but the result is that media in Canada and media in America are very, very different things.
In Canada or America? Because that distinction is basically what this thread is about.
I'm not arguing in favour of the Russian or Chinese system.
The problem with a religious view of your constitution is that it short-circuits rational thought. Refer to numerous examples in this thread of people treating any limitation on free speech as totally interchangeable, or of people instantly leaping to the conclusion that Canada must be some kind of Orwellian state where expressing dissenting opinions is illegal, among other poorly reasoned arguments. This kind of thing wouldn't happen if people took a step back and looked at the issues objectively.
No you can't. You're either making things up or taking things out of context.
You think I'm talking about one single example here? The problem is epidemic.
Believers of it are.
There's a difference between someone looking up him and his work (as I was obviously able to) and him speaking them publicly, which he was barred from doing up here. I don't know why this kind of distinction seems so hard to impart in this thread.
But it's the reality of the situation, given how many people in America publish all manner of indictment of, say, LGBT people and see it reach wide audiences, who believe it as reasonable and factual. These sophists are bigots of the highest order, and their arguments are deeply flawed... yet there are many who accept them and see those people as being anything but bigots. They see those who cry out against bigotry as being the "real" bigots.
Citation needed.
This might have merit if the issue were in any way open to debate, but the fact of the matter is that the Holocaust so very obviously did happen that the only arguments against it slip into hate speech territory by their very structure and aim.
But even so, under Canada's hate speech laws, someone who publishes a Holocaust denial that is demonstrably true wouldn't be convicted of hate crime (both because that's one of the ways in which someone is found not guilty, and because Canada doesn't to my knowledge have specific Holocaust denial legislation, merely hate crime legislation). Just because it's impossible doesn't mean the law would protect someone who did kick reason to the curb and make the impossible possible.
This is a danger of people taking a religious view of their constitution/bill of rights. They see such things as being so self-evident that they honestly can't fathom it being reasonably challenged. Hence many of the replies in this thread.
I mean, I'm far from perfect, myself, but I'd like to think I'm at least not falling into that trap.
It's not a logical fallacy, its the truth. Freedom of speech doesn't exist if it's not freedom to express all ideas. IF it's, instead, freedom to express only ideas that the government has deemed socially acceptable, then it is in fact the exact opposite of freedom of speech.
A government prohibition on hate speech means you do not have freedom of speech.