mclumber1 Posted June 30, 2021 Author Share Posted June 30, 2021 Many of you ITT have said awful things about people or groups - including the fact that you would like to kill them, or at least see them be killed. It's also interesting that many of you support the creation of laws that would make those words illegal to say. I always knew liberals were not actually for freedom of speech, and this is just further proof. A bunch of fascists on the CEB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Many of you ITT have said awful things about people or groups - including the fact that you would like to kill them, or at least see them be killed. It's also interesting that many of you support the creation of laws that would make those words illegal to say. I always knew liberals were not actually for freedom of speech, and this is just further proof. A bunch of fascists on the CEB. <---- not a "liberal" and therefore sees no contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Many of you ITT have said awful things about people or groups - including the fact that you would like to kill them, or at least see them be killed. It's also interesting that many of you support the creation of laws that would make those words illegal to say. I always knew liberals were not actually for freedom of speech, and this is just further proof. A bunch of fascists on the CEB. This isn't hate speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Many of you ITT have said awful things about people or groups - including the fact that you would like to kill them, or at least see them be killed. It's also interesting that many of you support the creation of laws that would make those words illegal to say. I always knew liberals were not actually for freedom of speech, and this is just further proof. A bunch of fascists on the CEB. Not all of us. I look at it the same way I look at the death penalty. Sure, in theory, I'm pro-death penalty. But who gets to decide? How can we be sure? Let people spew their hate vomit. We should educate people on how to recognize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 I think a lot of people are confusing "mean speech" with "hate speech." They are not the same, and would not be the same under this rule. "But Riley, if the government can ban hate speech, then they could ban mean speech next!" Well, yes, but they could also ban shirts, pants, and dogs, but they aren't going to. Slippery slope isn't a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: I think a lot of people are confusing "mean speech" with "hate speech." They are not the same, and would not be the same under this rule. "But Riley, if the government can ban hate speech, then they could ban mean speech next!" Well, yes, but they could also ban shirts, pants, and dogs, but they aren't going to. Slippery slope isn't a thing. The distinction, as I believe @sblfilms said, is speech vs. incitement of violence. Ranting about Jews taking over the flat earth with their space lasers is one thing, but when you incite a crowd to armed revolt for said Jewish space lasers, that's different. I'm not for banning people talking about the Jewish space lasers. Or for any other idiotic shit they might come up with. No one should have the power of deciding what is or isn't hate speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Just now, Fizzzzle said: The distinction, as I believe @sblfilms said, is speech vs. incitement of violence. Ranting about Jews taking over the flat earth with their space lasers is one thing, but when you incite a crowd to armed revolt for said Jewish space lasers, that's different. I'm not for banning people talking about the Jewish space lasers. Or for any other idiotic shit they might come up with. No one should have the power of deciding what is or isn't hate speech. My argument would be that the current definition of "incitement" is what needs to change in the modern area thanks to new technology. Does going on TV and saying "everyone go to 25th and 4th tonight, we're going to kill some Jews!" count as incitement? Yes. Does going on TV for six months and saying "These Jews...they are coming into our neighbourhoods, taking our jobs, taking our women, corrupting our children. Someone ought to think about a solution. I mean, would you want a Jew living next to you? I wouldn't. Someone ought to do something about these Jews" count? Unfortunately, no, but that's the sort of stuff that is actually causing violence now in the US (and elsewhere). Turning someone crazy with a lower-level of hate over long periods of time is just as dangerous as demanding violence over a short period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted June 30, 2021 Author Share Posted June 30, 2021 1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said: Turning someone crazy with a lower-level of hate over long periods of time is just as dangerous as demanding violence over a short period. Is Bernie Sanders guilty of spreading hate speech then? Suspect in congressional shooting was Bernie Sanders supporter, strongly anti-Trump | CNN WWW.CNN.COM James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders' progressive politics -- and his hatred of conservatives and President Donald Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Is Bernie Sanders guilty of spreading hate speech then? Sure - why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Is Bernie Sanders guilty of spreading hate speech then? Suspect in congressional shooting was Bernie Sanders supporter, strongly anti-Trump | CNN WWW.CNN.COM James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders' progressive politics -- and his hatred of conservatives and President Donald Trump. Doing something because of something someone else said isn't enough. The intent of the person saying the things need to be to create hatred. I agree that that is what makes any rule like this tricky. In some cases like Fox News, it's pretty "obvious." But how do you prove it? Pattern? Anyone can go out and cause violence and claim it was because of The King of Queens TV show, but that doesn't mean the show had hate speech. I think the proof would be a pattern of speech that degrades and lessons other peoples knowingly (people in general, not specific people like politicians). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 I just wanted to post in this thread to state that I don't care. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 24 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Is Bernie Sanders guilty of spreading hate speech then? Suspect in congressional shooting was Bernie Sanders supporter, strongly anti-Trump | CNN WWW.CNN.COM James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders' progressive politics -- and his... maybe I missed it in the article; what did Bernie say exactly that this guy felt he was being called to action by Bernie to shoot Republicans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dualhunter Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 A lot of people who are in favor will change their minds when they get fined for saying "eat the rich" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Also, this bill isn't likely to pass anytime soon. Parliament just rose for the summer, and there is a 95% chance an election is called before it sits again in the fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 6 hours ago, Xbob42 said: Hmm... Sure seems to be a lot of minimizing of hate speech to just "mean" speech. There's a vast difference between "mean" speech and "the entire purpose of our group is to hate and dehumanize these people, also members of the hate group we have created consistently commit or encourage acts of violence against those we hate." But of course if you obfuscate that with enough layers then technically it's no longer "incitement" and is just "mean." It isn’t minimizing, it’s drawing a distinction between two things that get cobbled together into the catch all of “hate speech”. One is mean words, the other is incitement. Saying mean things about people is terrible, but it does not create any present danger to the person or group that is the target. Incitement does and as such should not be protected. What is being described by the Canadian AG is explicitly about the mean words part of hate speech Quote “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” Which is why I’m not in favor of such restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 One problem with regulating speech is people already and with increased regularity will just speak in code. We already have situations like when Sarah Palin out crosshairs on a map to target Democrats and somebody took that as a call to shoot Gabby Gifford. She got to say she never intended for it be interpreted to mean to shoot those Democrats. Hiding behind “that’s not what I meant”. maybe in some cases that’s true. We all say things we should probably screen better for the sake of clarity. But Who gets to be the arbiter of thought and intent? I hate Republicans and at times wish we could regulate them like a parent who prohibits certain language in their home in the hope that it instills good behavior. I just don’t know how well we can do it without being far too draconian. One place we can make a change is in branding and labeling. You shouldn’t be able to brand yourself as news when you’re mostly just opinions on the news. If you want to call yourself news just report the news. If you want to share your opinion of the news you cannot call yourself news. And you can’t hide behind making a news story “people feel xxxxx about xxxxxx” or “reporting” a story in the form a question. So MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, CNN, etc need to change their name or change their programming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Let's all just admit that the so-called "Enlightenment" was a serious error in judgment and move on from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.