Are you crazy? I would never outlaw lesbians.
Yeah that looks real nice up there.
sorry dude.
we've got to protect all speech equally.
if people can't use hate speech, then why should we let people burn the flag?
and if you can't use racial slurs or burn the flag, then the vitriol of anti-abortion protestors with their signs can't be allowed.
takes me to a world that i really don't want to live in.
we've got to protect all speech equally.
if people can't use hate speech, then why should we let people burn the flag?
and if you can't use racial slurs or burn the flag, then the vitriol of anti-abortion protestors with their signs can't be allowed.
takes me to a world that i really don't want to live in.
Anyway, it's a public benefit to the really fucked up people
who like to be racist in public. For people like me it's not a
benefit. I guess the benefit I get out of it is that I get to yell
back at them? That's not a lot of consolation.
who like to be racist in public. For people like me it's not a
benefit. I guess the benefit I get out of it is that I get to yell
back at them? That's not a lot of consolation.
Again, the benefit is not that you can call someone racist.
The benefit is the established principle that speech is unfettered, so no one can be silenced by law.
If you allow some speech to be outlawed, then any speech can potentially be outlawed.
In order to fully protect laudable speech, you have to accept that some heinous speech will occur, and rely on the public at large to control it with social pressure.
No one is claiming there is a benefit to calling someone nigger. The benefit is that no one can stop a person from doing so using the power of law.
Still can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.
think for a second, think:
"the guy from the internet that has an anti-swastika tattoo: does he want freedom of speech because he likes racism and racist people? or could there be another reason why the man with the anti-swastika tattoo would believe in freedom of speech?"
"the guy from the internet that has an anti-swastika tattoo: does he want freedom of speech because he likes racism and racist people? or could there be another reason why the man with the anti-swastika tattoo would believe in freedom of speech?"
no shit. inciting violence or chaos is not pure speech. harassment and threat, neither.
No one is claiming there is a benefit to calling someone nigger. The benefit is that no one can stop a person from doing so using the power of law.
The only way this is an advantage is because the word
isn't always used with racist intent. That's why legislating
against words doesn't work. You can't be sure of the
intention. Of course, that's why ambiguous racism laws
also don't work.
I don't really want to outlaw hate speech, and all the lovely things it does for us.
I just think that it's too prevalent and too easy to resort to.
I definitely don't want to live in a world where it's illegal to
think certain things and I wouldn't suggest something like
that, but I also don't want to live in a world where we've
got millions of people who just scream repugnant and asinine
shit just because they can.
Shrug. Maybe I've just lost faith in the ability of Americans to be educated and evolve.
another option is to thicken skin.
words can't have any more power over you than you allow them.
:-/
words can't have any more power over you than you allow them.
:-/
ok, that part may not be entirely true...
I also don't want to live in a world where we've
got millions of people who just scream repugnant and asinine
shit just because they can.
got millions of people who just scream repugnant and asinine
shit just because they can.
I'd find a way to go to Mars, then. Millions of people yelling stupid, ignorant things has been a fixture of human society ever since we hit 2,000,0001 people.
Haha! I'm not talking about people upsetting me.
Come on, man. I fucking laugh at my own lame
ass jokes. It takes a lot more than a few towel
heads and durka durkas to get me worked up.
But that doesn't mean that it doesn't cause other problems that aren't specific to my life.
I see the effects that that sort of thing has. It's hard not to.
Come on, man. I fucking laugh at my own lame
ass jokes. It takes a lot more than a few towel
heads and durka durkas to get me worked up.
But that doesn't mean that it doesn't cause other problems that aren't specific to my life.
I see the effects that that sort of thing has. It's hard not to.
...I also don't want to live in a world where we've
got millions of people who just scream repugnant and asinine
shit just because they can.
Shrug. Maybe I've just lost faith in the ability of Americans to be educated and evolve.
got millions of people who just scream repugnant and asinine
shit just because they can.
Shrug. Maybe I've just lost faith in the ability of Americans to be educated and evolve.
Dude, stop watching Fox News.
i wasn't talking to you, personally.
it's a strange relationship that we have with language;
on one hand, our discounting of its value is evident in the way we abuse it.
but on the other hand, the value we place in it is evident in how subservient we make ourselves to it.
we allow words to elicit a reaction from us; to command us to act.
it's a strange relationship that we have with language;
on one hand, our discounting of its value is evident in the way we abuse it.
but on the other hand, the value we place in it is evident in how subservient we make ourselves to it.
we allow words to elicit a reaction from us; to command us to act.
Wander said:
I'd find a way to go to Mars, then. Millions of people yelling stupid, ignorant things has been a fixture of human society ever since we hit 2,000,0001 people.
I'd find a way to go to Mars, then. Millions of people yelling stupid, ignorant things has been a fixture of human society ever since we hit 2,000,0001 people.
I bet it was that one dude.
Seriously, though, I'm pretty sure that it's this sort of
widespread complacency which makes things take so
long for us. Some people have that drive and change
history.
Most people hate themselves and shit their pants when they die.
MisterZero said:
Dude, stop watching Fox News.
Dude, stop watching Fox News.
LOL, tell that to the millions of viewers that they actually have and take them seriously.
we allow words to elicit a reaction from us
it's some words that are linked to a special area in our brains, though... because of their associations. so depending on when and where you grow up, some words are gonna evoke a near-automatic response.
like there was that one guy what had a lesion in his speech center but could still swear like a motherfucker. they wrote papers about him. fuck... I would too if I could get paid for it.
Beestinga said:
another option is to thicken skin.
words can't have any more power over you than you allow them.
:-/
another option is to thicken skin.
words can't have any more power over you than you allow them.
:-/
Tell that to the people who are victims of institutionalized hate speech. Whipping up the masses to imprison
then the problem is with the policy, not the speech.
Take a wild guess as to who is Orly Taitz, Esq, DDS, new facebook friend? Go ahead... Guess?
You sorta expected it, didn't you?
You sorta expected it, didn't you?
From: Hip About Time - "I want bitches crying in clean Cadillacs at my funeral"
Date: 11/3/09 @ 2:38 PM
48,671
lol
Oirly Taints
Oirly Taints
Beestinga said:
we've got to protect all speech equally.
we've got to protect all speech equally.
How do you feel about laws protecting people from libel, slander, false advertising, etc.?
are you patronizing me, or are you really unsure why we have those sorts of rules?
I understand why we have those sorts of rules, but I think they qualify as exceptions to the "protect all speech" statement you made. So if some exceptions can be justified because they promote some important social good, that seems to be the foot in the door for rationalizing other exceptions for well-intended purposes.
I'm genuinely curious about how you and others would answer that question, because I think my position is similar to your own, but at the same time I don't think it's completely self-consistent. I figured maybe you or someone else had thought about it more than I have and could provide me with the rationalization I'm looking for, or else offer a more reasonable stance.
I'm genuinely curious about how you and others would answer that question, because I think my position is similar to your own, but at the same time I don't think it's completely self-consistent. I figured maybe you or someone else had thought about it more than I have and could provide me with the rationalization I'm looking for, or else offer a more reasonable stance.
I mean, I can see how libel, slander and false advertising differ from non-restricted forms of speech ... they're specific and dishonest. I guess it's the specificity that really is the justification against our present exceptions to freedom of speech (since we have laws against conspiracy, death threats and inciting violence, which don't have to involve dishonesty), whereas the political speech of the kind that's supposed to be protected by the first amendment is more abstract ... or at least, that's what we can argue. It still seems a little thin to me, though.
i had a rhetoric professor and first amendment near-purist who explained it thusly;
there are things that are speech; these are the things that we say. obviously protected.
There are actions that count as speech, like burning the flag. protected, but less obviously so.
Then there is speech that counts as action (like telling a hit man that you will pay him money to murder your spouse). This is subjectively protected, depending on context, outcomes, intent, etc.
If a stand-up comic talks about how much he hates his ex-wife and wishes she were dead as part of an act, it's protected. if a stand-up comic tells a hit man in privacy that he hates his ex-wife and wishes she were dead, the speech may not be protected, depending on a number of factors.
Does that make sense? So distributing hate-speech literature is protected. Pointing out the Jew in the crowd to a bunch of neo-nazis and suggesting that somebody kick their ass isn't.
there are things that are speech; these are the things that we say. obviously protected.
There are actions that count as speech, like burning the flag. protected, but less obviously so.
Then there is speech that counts as action (like telling a hit man that you will pay him money to murder your spouse). This is subjectively protected, depending on context, outcomes, intent, etc.
If a stand-up comic talks about how much he hates his ex-wife and wishes she were dead as part of an act, it's protected. if a stand-up comic tells a hit man in privacy that he hates his ex-wife and wishes she were dead, the speech may not be protected, depending on a number of factors.
Does that make sense? So distributing hate-speech literature is protected. Pointing out the Jew in the crowd to a bunch of neo-nazis and suggesting that somebody kick their ass isn't.
It makes sense. It does seem to be a fairly fine point, though. If my understanding is correct, you can have laws that prevent you from spreading hateful (but seemingly plausible) lies about the Catholic Church, but spreading hateful lies about the church's congregants and supporters (namely, Catholics) in general is protected free speech.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BO6PQO1&show_article=1
Oh look! The Republicans have finally put down (in writing) an alternative to the Democratic health care proposals.
Of course, they needed to wait for months until they can stick it in the spokes of Congress' debate on the Democratic plan.
Oh look! The Republicans have finally put down (in writing) an alternative to the Democratic health care proposals.
Of course, they needed to wait for months until they can stick it in the spokes of Congress' debate on the Democratic plan.
i should know, but i don't, the specifics of defamation law in the US.
Is it actually illegal? as in, you can be arrested/jailed?
I know there's an abundance of defamation tort law, but criminal?
even for tort law, you have to be demonstrated to know that what you're saying is untrue, and the plaintiff has to reasonably quantify what and how much harm was done by your defamation. All in all, very defense-friendly, imho.
Is it actually illegal? as in, you can be arrested/jailed?
I know there's an abundance of defamation tort law, but criminal?
even for tort law, you have to be demonstrated to know that what you're saying is untrue, and the plaintiff has to reasonably quantify what and how much harm was done by your defamation. All in all, very defense-friendly, imho.
I think I like the tort reform addition.
i should know, but i don't, the specifics of defamation law in the US.
Is it actually illegal? as in, you can be arrested/jailed?
I know there's an abundance of defamation tort law, but criminal?
even for tort law, you have to be demonstrated to know that what you're saying is untrue, and the plaintiff has to reasonably quantify what and how much harm was done by your defamation. All in all, very defense-friendly, imho.
Is it actually illegal? as in, you can be arrested/jailed?
I know there's an abundance of defamation tort law, but criminal?
even for tort law, you have to be demonstrated to know that what you're saying is untrue, and the plaintiff has to reasonably quantify what and how much harm was done by your defamation. All in all, very defense-friendly, imho.
I was wondering about that too, but in any case, isn't civil law supposed to be Constitutional too, at least in theory? Would it be unconstitutional or wrong to impose civil penalties on hate speech? If so, what distinguishes the two? The points we've already covered (the fact that defamation does harm to some specific individual or organization), or something else?
defamation and libel are usually tough cases and there has to have some fairly specific things involved first. You hear about them, but lots of lawyers won't even touch those cases because they're hard to win.
And what about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario... that's not considered free speech either.
Had a friend who got off an assault charge because of the "fighting words" the other guy used. The court decided that dude deserved to have his ass handed to him for provoking the fight.
And what about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario... that's not considered free speech either.
Had a friend who got off an assault charge because of the "fighting words" the other guy used. The court decided that dude deserved to have his ass handed to him for provoking the fight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#United_States
there's a little primer.
there's a little primer.
Appeal's court rules you have no legal recourse if you are innocent and the US participates in your torture
Welcome to the 15th Century redux
Welcome to the 15th Century redux
Well if they can rule that it's not illegal to execute an innocent man, why not?
and you can get raped and have no legal protections if you work for a defense contractor
liberals are the conservatives
trying to conserve human rights
that Republicans want to take away
liberals are the conservatives
trying to conserve human rights
that Republicans want to take away
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-timeline-110309
Just came across this tonight and thought I'd share.
Just came across this tonight and thought I'd share.
Standards for defamation vary from state to state. There are some SCOTUS cases used as guidance (e.g. New York Times v. Sullivan).
For your typical slander/libel claim:
-the statement must be untrue
-disseminated to others
-and if the plaintiff is a public figure or the matter is one of public concern, there must be proof of actual malice by the defendant
(knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth)
The cases are difficult to win imo because the standards are often nebulous and poorly defined.
I think there is also an underlying concern about chilling free speech and creating an atmosphere of prior restraint.
For your typical slander/libel claim:
-the statement must be untrue
-disseminated to others
-and if the plaintiff is a public figure or the matter is one of public concern, there must be proof of actual malice by the defendant
(knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth)
The cases are difficult to win imo because the standards are often nebulous and poorly defined.
I think there is also an underlying concern about chilling free speech and creating an atmosphere of prior restraint.
And here is a differnet take on Obamas progress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/us/politics/03year.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/us/politics/03year.html
Who would the Judge be, Pigmeat Markham?
HERE COME THE JUDGE
HERE COME THE JUDGE
Common law also recognizes several categories of slander per se for cases involving:
-impugning someone's professional competence
-contraction of a "loathsome" disease
-the chastity of a woman
-impugning someone's professional competence
-contraction of a "loathsome" disease
-the chastity of a woman
but not over the internet, right?
I would think so, provided you identified the person. The law doesn't protect screen names and UID's afaik.
Slander and libel laws vary a lot per country.
Those per se exceptions are pretty old and I bet you'd have tough time suing the guy at the bar who called you a slut.
The first half of Obama's accomplishments above is mostly liberal stuff. The bottom half is all pretty dang conservative. Which brings us to The Problem With America Today: Blame it on the Internet, on partisan politics, on the economic crash, on the legacy of war or Fox News or Michael Moore, but our vital center is getting stiff — and it is starting to stink.
Liberals are upset because Obama didn't shut down Guantánamo or stop the wiretapping program or end all wars or support gay marriage and kill Don't Ask Don't Tell. Conservatives are pissed off because they hate health-care reform, family planning, ending any war at all, organic gardening at the White House, and government in general.
What's worse, both sides are so angry and righteous that they can't even begin to give credit where it is due. When was the last time you heard a conservative cheer about that $288 billion tax cut? Or credit Obama for the centrism it took to appoint McChrystal, Panetta, and Gates? And how many liberals choose to be understanding about the practical difficulties of shutting down Guantánamo, achieving equal rights for gays, or tapping Al Qaeda's phones?
And where, on either side, can you find a scrap of humility about the staggeringly complex challenge of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or a scrap of gratitude at having escaped global financial doom?
So the question, a year since we elected him, isn't how much Obama has accomplished. The question is why we've turned so small and mean that we only see half of it — the half we happen to agree with.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-timeline-110309#ixzz0Vqc kFUSC
Liberals are upset because Obama didn't shut down Guantánamo or stop the wiretapping program or end all wars or support gay marriage and kill Don't Ask Don't Tell. Conservatives are pissed off because they hate health-care reform, family planning, ending any war at all, organic gardening at the White House, and government in general.
What's worse, both sides are so angry and righteous that they can't even begin to give credit where it is due. When was the last time you heard a conservative cheer about that $288 billion tax cut? Or credit Obama for the centrism it took to appoint McChrystal, Panetta, and Gates? And how many liberals choose to be understanding about the practical difficulties of shutting down Guantánamo, achieving equal rights for gays, or tapping Al Qaeda's phones?
And where, on either side, can you find a scrap of humility about the staggeringly complex challenge of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or a scrap of gratitude at having escaped global financial doom?
So the question, a year since we elected him, isn't how much Obama has accomplished. The question is why we've turned so small and mean that we only see half of it — the half we happen to agree with.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-timeline-110309#ixzz0Vqc kFUSC
Thanks clives, that is the part I was hoping people would get something from.
| forum | login | new user | top |