Free Speech / Hate Speech

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:23 am

Buc2 wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:I think nuance/context matters, especially in cases like this.

When I was in the Navy it was not uncommon for the phrase "kill yourself" to be thrown around in joking manner. So while joking about suicide is poor behavior it doesn't make it criminal. This is where intent and context matters and needs to laid out by the prosecutor.

If a cult leader brainwashes people into committing suicide I believe that to be criminal act and not protected under free speech, but if I tell MB to take a "long walk off a short pier" after a disagreement and he goes out and walks off a pier and drowns to death than I don't believe I should be charged criminally for his death.

I don't recall she did anything close to brainwashing. Again, telling the guy to kill himself, even though she was serious, makes her a pos, not a murderer, imo.


Agreed, but she wasn't charged with murder. Maybe it's semantics but she was charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is one of the lower criminal charges one can get when you're involved with the death of another human.

We're talking about criminality here and whether her actions should be protected by the 1A.

Involuntary manslaughter is a result of the unintentional killing of another without malice, but while engaged in an unlawful activity that does not usually tend to cause death or great bodily harm, or while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others. In other words: the offender accidentally kills someone while being careless.


Her behavior was certainly reckless (while lawful) and was argued that it led to this boy taking his own life.

It's a tough one and don't believe she should be imprisoned for a long time by any means. But I do think her behavior could be constituted as criminal in this instance based on the details I've read of the incident. It wasn't like she was joking (even half-joking in a tongue in cheek way) about it with him.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:42 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Buc2 wrote:I don't recall she did anything close to brainwashing. Again, telling the guy to kill himself, even though she was serious, makes her a pos, not a murderer manslaughterer, imo.


Agreed, but she wasn't charged with murder. Maybe it's semantics but she was charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is one of the lower criminal charges one can get when you're involved with the death of another human.

We're talking about criminality here and whether her actions should be protected by the 1A.

Involuntary manslaughter is a result of the unintentional killing of another without malice, but while engaged in an unlawful activity that does not usually tend to cause death or great bodily harm, or while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others. In other words: the offender accidentally kills someone while being careless.


Her behavior was certainly reckless (while lawful) and was argued that it led to this boy taking his own life.

It's a tough one and don't believe she should be imprisoned for a long time by any means. But I do think her behavior could be constituted as criminal in this instance based on the details I've read of the incident. It wasn't like she was joking (even half-joking in a tongue in cheek way) about it with him.

Fixed
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:24 pm

This is a good discussion so far.


Here’s another twist — do any of your answers change if the person telling someone to kill them selves is an adult and the target is a 12 year old minor?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:16 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:This is a good discussion so far.


Here’s another twist — do any of your answers change if the person telling someone to kill them selves is an adult and the target is a 12 year old minor?

Other than the fact that would make them an even bigger pos than this girl was, probably not. Although, since the suicide victim in this case is a minor, it might punch the ticket on some child protection/endangerment laws that are on the books. Not sure, though.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:23 pm

So if someone manages to pull a Jim Jones but doesn't partake in the Flavor-Aid themselves, should that person face legal consequences?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:28 pm

bucfanclw wrote:So if someone manages to pull a Jim Jones but doesn't partake in the Flavor-Aid themselves, should that person face legal consequences?

If it was proven they supplied the poison or provided the ingredients to make the poison knowing the express purpose of the ingredients they provided was for making said poison, then perhaps a case could be made. Otherwise they nail em on tax fraud or something.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:39 pm

The American Library Association (ALA) is refusing to back down from its stance that "hate groups" have the right to meet in public libraries.

Last week, the ALA revised its interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights to note that library meeting rooms should be open to all kinds of organizations. "If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms," the revised interpretation says, "then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities."

While the revision is new, the ALA's policy is not. In fact, under a section titled "Hate Speech and Hate Crime," the organization's website explains that as "sanctuary spaces for First Amendment ideals," libraries must protect hate speech and "symbols of hate." Hateful conduct, however, "is not tolerated."



'''''

"Publicly funded libraries are bound by the First Amendment and the associated law governing access to a designated public forum," read a statement from James LaRue, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "A publicly funded library is not obligated to provide meeting room space to the public, but, if it chooses to do so, under law cannot discriminate or deny access based upon the viewpoint of speakers or the content of their speech."






I'm sure everyone can guess the response the ALA got for their commitment to free speech

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/yes-h ... ngs-in-lib
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:59 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
The American Library Association (ALA) is refusing to back down from its stance that "hate groups" have the right to meet in public libraries.

Last week, the ALA revised its interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights to note that library meeting rooms should be open to all kinds of organizations. "If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms," the revised interpretation says, "then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities."

While the revision is new, the ALA's policy is not. In fact, under a section titled "Hate Speech and Hate Crime," the organization's website explains that as "sanctuary spaces for First Amendment ideals," libraries must protect hate speech and "symbols of hate." Hateful conduct, however, "is not tolerated."



'''''

"Publicly funded libraries are bound by the First Amendment and the associated law governing access to a designated public forum," read a statement from James LaRue, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "A publicly funded library is not obligated to provide meeting room space to the public, but, if it chooses to do so, under law cannot discriminate or deny access based upon the viewpoint of speakers or the content of their speech."






I'm sure everyone can guess the response the ALA got for their commitment to free speech

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/yes-h ... ngs-in-lib

I can certainly guess, and I bet I'd be right. But I agree with their stance. Just because we find some speech distasteful, we can't, as individuals, decide what violates the 1A.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:33 pm

I liked LaRue's final response to Meredith...


Meredith

@librarianmer
Jul 9
More
In terms of safety, I'm thinking about *our* responsibility to our community rather than the law. Maybe the answer is simply not to provide meeting spaces to the public at all.

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Reply 1 Retweet Like 1


James LaRue

@jaslar
Follow Follow @jaslar
More
Replying to @librarianmer @foureyedsoul @ala
Right now, that's the only legal solution. But most library meeting room uses BUILD community. Are we so afraid of hate speech that we'd give up all the rest?

4:26 PM - 9 Jul 2018
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Selmon Rules » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:53 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

'''''



People will want to counter protest this by jumping up and down, screaming while they should just go to the library during those times and quietly pick up a book to read while the hate group is having their time..... Love to see the look on faces as they leave through that crowd, sitting there quietly, lol



I'm sure everyone can guess the response the ALA got for their commitment to free speech

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/yes-h ... ngs-in-lib

I can certainly guess, and I bet I'd be right. But I agree with their stance. Just because we find some speech distasteful, we can't, as individuals, decide what violates the 1A.
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:08 pm

I don't think the library should be able to deny them from speaking. But being a public place and forum they also have no right to stop people going in and protesting the hell out of whatever hate group is doing their thing.

I don't believe that intolerance should be tolerated. Some of the ideas that these groups spout are incompatible with a civilized society. However, it is up to society and community to decide what is okay and what is not. It is most definitely not the government's job.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:03 pm

The Outsider wrote:I don't think the library should be able to deny them from speaking. But being a public place and forum they also have no right to stop people going in and protesting the hell out of whatever hate group is doing their thing.

I don't believe that intolerance should be tolerated. Some of the ideas that these groups spout are incompatible with a civilized society. However, it is up to society and community to decide what is okay and what is not. It is most definitely not the government's job.

People going in to disrupt their meeting is a violation of the right to free assembly. The government has a responsibility to prevent protestors from breaking up a peaceful assembly. It’s the same as “my right to swing ends at the other guy’s nose.” You cannot use your rights as justification to infringe on the rights of others.

So in your example, the protesters are allowed to peacefully stand outside the room holding signs. They cannot pound loudly on the door to make sure no one inside the room can hear.

The statement “I don’t believe that intolerance should be tolerated” is totally logically self-defeating. All ideas have access to the idea marketplace or none do. Once someone decides what is acceptable and what isn’t, you are on the road to tyranny.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:25 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
The Outsider wrote:I don't think the library should be able to deny them from speaking. But being a public place and forum they also have no right to stop people going in and protesting the hell out of whatever hate group is doing their thing.

I don't believe that intolerance should be tolerated. Some of the ideas that these groups spout are incompatible with a civilized society. However, it is up to society and community to decide what is okay and what is not. It is most definitely not the government's job.

People going in to disrupt their meeting is a violation of the right to free assembly. The government has a responsibility to prevent protestors from breaking up a peaceful assembly. It’s the same as “my right to swing ends at the other guy’s nose.” You cannot use your rights as justification to infringe on the rights of others.

So in your example, the protesters are allowed to peacefully stand outside the room holding signs. They cannot pound loudly on the door to make sure no one inside the room can hear.

The statement “I don’t believe that intolerance should be tolerated” is totally logically self-defeating. All ideas have access to the idea marketplace or none do. Once someone decides what is acceptable and what isn’t, you are on the road to tyranny.


You're completely missing the point of that statement. When the community, the social construct that governs our every day interactions (i.e. peer pressure, societal norms, mutual respect, etc.) tolerates things like racism, corruption, abuse, etc. the opening is there for catastrophe. Because that legitimizes those ideals and the problem with legitimizing those ideals is because the holders of said ideals are not there to interact in good faith. They don't want debate, they don't want to be challenged, they want to conform the world to the way they believe it should be. This kills the democracy.

However, I never said those ideals should be criminalized. I actually explicitly stated the opposite albeit not in those exact words. I actually said the exact opposite.

You're also conflating me saying "protesting the hell out of" with "breaking up a peaceful assembly" which is confusing to me.

Ultimately my point was that the responsible members of society should first try to educate bigots as to why they're incorrect and failing that shun their ideals and belief system so as to delegitimize it as the tripe that it is. There is nothing authoritarian about a society expressing what it thinks is acceptable and what it thinks is not.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby MJW » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:05 am

The Outsider wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:People going in to disrupt their meeting is a violation of the right to free assembly. The government has a responsibility to prevent protestors from breaking up a peaceful assembly. It’s the same as “my right to swing ends at the other guy’s nose.” You cannot use your rights as justification to infringe on the rights of others.

So in your example, the protesters are allowed to peacefully stand outside the room holding signs. They cannot pound loudly on the door to make sure no one inside the room can hear.

The statement “I don’t believe that intolerance should be tolerated” is totally logically self-defeating. All ideas have access to the idea marketplace or none do. Once someone decides what is acceptable and what isn’t, you are on the road to tyranny.


You're completely missing the point of that statement. When the community, the social construct that governs our every day interactions (i.e. peer pressure, societal norms, mutual respect, etc.) tolerates things like racism, corruption, abuse, etc. the opening is there for catastrophe. Because that legitimizes those ideals and the problem with legitimizing those ideals is because the holders of said ideals are not there to interact in good faith. They don't want debate, they don't want to be challenged, they want to conform the world to the way they believe it should be. This kills the democracy.

However, I never said those ideals should be criminalized. I actually explicitly stated the opposite albeit not in those exact words. I actually said the exact opposite.

You're also conflating me saying "protesting the hell out of" with "breaking up a peaceful assembly" which is confusing to me.

Ultimately my point was that the responsible members of society should first try to educate bigots as to why they're incorrect and failing that shun their ideals and belief system so as to delegitimize it as the tripe that it is. There is nothing authoritarian about a society expressing what it thinks is acceptable and what it thinks is not.


If you're five, and you think authoritarianism always comes through the door announcing itself as authoritarianism, then this perspective is defensible.

The thing is, it doesn't. Usually, it does exactly what you're advocating "legitimate" society should do - shun debate, shun challenge, and force dissidents to conform. How does that not make society exactly what it claims to be protecting itself from? How is the only difference anything but branding? Isn't the beginning of EVERY authoritarian society the sentence, "We simply must protect ourselves from __________?"

No, you invite all ideas into the forum, even the terrible ones. You expose them, neuter them, and let them skulk out of the building under their own power. If you don't trust your society to do so, then your society sucks. If you need to bar the "wrong ideas" from the table, your "right ideas" suck. If you think you, or people like you, are the only rightful arbiters of what the "right" and "wrong" ideas are in the first place, you suck.

Respect the primacy of 1A (etc) rights in your society. Let the good ideas sharpen themselves on the bad ideas. Let the citizenry interact with those ideas as they see fit, provided they respect the rights of the rest of society. If you can't trust your society do that, you've already failed.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8303
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 187 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby MJW » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:08 am

The Outsider wrote:
I don't believe that intolerance should be tolerated. Some of the ideas that these groups spout are incompatible with a civilized society. However, it is up to society and community to decide what is okay and what is not. It is most definitely not the government's job.


WTF does "society" and "community" mean in this context? What's the difference between what you're advocating and "the government?" It's a more powerful group forcing a minority to coalesce to their views.

Do people have rights, or don't they?

If they only have rights when 51% of their neighbors think they should have rights, then they don't have rights.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8303
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 187 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Zarniwoop » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:13 am

MJW wrote:
If they only have rights when 51% of their neighbors think they should have rights, then they don't have rights.



I wish more people understood this unbelievably simple fact
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:39 am

MJW wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
I don't believe that intolerance should be tolerated. Some of the ideas that these groups spout are incompatible with a civilized society. However, it is up to society and community to decide what is okay and what is not. It is most definitely not the government's job.


WTF does "society" and "community" mean in this context? What's the difference between what you're advocating and "the government?" It's a more powerful group forcing a minority to coalesce to their views.

Do people have rights, or don't they?

If they only have rights when 51% of their neighbors think they should have rights, then they don't have rights.


So you know how John Schnatter is facing societal consequences for saying the N word right now?

That's exactly what I mean by society and community. America as a whole has largely decided racism is totally a **** move. So when some rich douchebag is racist there tend to be consequences. PR, financial, etc.

I'm frankly amazed that you somehow interpreted that to have anything to do with someone's rights. People have a right to say whatever the hell they want. They don't have a right that protects them from heckling and ridicule if what they say is stupid. Or in the case of a business owner, boycott.

I'm assuming that sort of right is not something you're advocating for.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Ken Carson » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:27 am

The Outsider wrote:
MJW wrote:
WTF does "society" and "community" mean in this context? What's the difference between what you're advocating and "the government?" It's a more powerful group forcing a minority to coalesce to their views.

Do people have rights, or don't they?

If they only have rights when 51% of their neighbors think they should have rights, then they don't have rights.


So you know how John Schnatter is facing societal consequences for saying the N word right now?

That's exactly what I mean by society and community. America as a whole has largely decided racism is totally a **** move. So when some rich douchebag is racist there tend to be consequences. PR, financial, etc.

I'm frankly amazed that you somehow interpreted that to have anything to do with someone's rights. People have a right to say whatever the hell they want. They don't have a right that protects them from heckling and ridicule if what they say is stupid. Or in the case of a business owner, boycott.

I'm assuming that sort of right is not something you're advocating for.

I think that your original post about what people should do about “hate groups” (which many people would currently define Republicans as, by the way) left a lot of things vague. The way you have clarified it makes a lo more sense, which in turn makes the case for discourse as the way to reach understanding, not deplatforming or protesting
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:29 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
So you know how John Schnatter is facing societal consequences for saying the N word right now?

That's exactly what I mean by society and community. America as a whole has largely decided racism is totally a **** move. So when some rich douchebag is racist there tend to be consequences. PR, financial, etc.

I'm frankly amazed that you somehow interpreted that to have anything to do with someone's rights. People have a right to say whatever the hell they want. They don't have a right that protects them from heckling and ridicule if what they say is stupid. Or in the case of a business owner, boycott.

I'm assuming that sort of right is not something you're advocating for.

I think that your original post about what people should do about “hate groups” (which many people would currently define Republicans as, by the way) left a lot of things vague. The way you have clarified it makes a lo more sense, which in turn makes the case for discourse as the way to reach understanding, not deplatforming or protesting



There's not a whole lot of understanding to be found with bigots, nor is there usually much discourse to be had.

First off, I've found that people with extreme beliefs are often not interested in a genuine two-sided discussion. I'm always happy to engage in good natured debate and I've got nothing against educating people as to why their beliefs may be wrong. That is rarely a real option.

Second, they're wrong. I can't understand why someone would hate someone else for the color of their skin, who they love, who they ****, their religion, etc. It's a totally foreign notion to me.

So if I come across a group that is open to real discussion and not one-sided propaganda I'll be happy to engage them in such a manner, until then I'll be happy to let them know they're wrong via whatever method is available to me.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:35 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I think that your original post about what people should do about “hate groups” (which many people would currently define Republicans as, by the way) left a lot of things vague. The way you have clarified it makes a lo more sense, which in turn makes the case for discourse as the way to reach understanding, not deplatforming or protesting



There's not a whole lot of understanding to be found with bigots, nor is there usually much discourse to be had.

First off, I've found that people with extreme beliefs are often not interested in a genuine two-sided discussion. I'm always happy to engage in good natured debate and I've got nothing against educating people as to why their beliefs may be wrong. That is rarely a real option.

Second, they're wrong. I can't understand why someone would hate someone else for the color of their skin, who they love, who they ****, their religion, etc. It's a totally foreign notion to me.

So if I come across a group that is open to real discussion and not one-sided propaganda I'll be happy to engage them in such a manner, until then I'll be happy to let them know they're wrong via whatever method is available to me.

You're high as ****.

I can tell because that **** is beautiful.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:50 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
The Outsider wrote:

There's not a whole lot of understanding to be found with bigots, nor is there usually much discourse to be had.

First off, I've found that people with extreme beliefs are often not interested in a genuine two-sided discussion. I'm always happy to engage in good natured debate and I've got nothing against educating people as to why their beliefs may be wrong. That is rarely a real option.

Second, they're wrong. I can't understand why someone would hate someone else for the color of their skin, who they love, who they ****, their religion, etc. It's a totally foreign notion to me.

So if I come across a group that is open to real discussion and not one-sided propaganda I'll be happy to engage them in such a manner, until then I'll be happy to let them know they're wrong via whatever method is available to me.

You're high as ****.

I can tell because that **** is beautiful.


Actually I've been dead sober all day. Had to finish up a flooring job on a deadline that got pushed up. I'm ****ing exhausted now and I will be incredibly stoned once I get home.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Ken Carson » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:56 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I think that your original post about what people should do about “hate groups” (which many people would currently define Republicans as, by the way) left a lot of things vague. The way you have clarified it makes a lo more sense, which in turn makes the case for discourse as the way to reach understanding, not deplatforming or protesting



There's not a whole lot of understanding to be found with bigots, nor is there usually much discourse to be had.

First off, I've found that people with extreme beliefs are often not interested in a genuine two-sided discussion. I'm always happy to engage in good natured debate and I've got nothing against educating people as to why their beliefs may be wrong. That is rarely a real option.

Second, they're wrong. I can't understand why someone would hate someone else for the color of their skin, who they love, who they ****, their religion, etc. It's a totally foreign notion to me.

So if I come across a group that is open to real discussion and not one-sided propaganda I'll be happy to engage them in such a manner, until then I'll be happy to let them know they're wrong via whatever method is available to me.

I mean, sure. I personally have never met anyone who is that openly bigoted, so I suppose I don't see it as a huge societal issue. That white supremacist tiki torch thing was like 200 people, right?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:27 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:You're high as ****.

I can tell because that **** is beautiful.


Actually I've been dead sober all day. Had to finish up a flooring job on a deadline that got pushed up. I'm ****ing exhausted now and I will be incredibly stoned once I get home.

Well, I was high AF when I read it and it resonated.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:32 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
The Outsider wrote:

There's not a whole lot of understanding to be found with bigots, nor is there usually much discourse to be had.

First off, I've found that people with extreme beliefs are often not interested in a genuine two-sided discussion. I'm always happy to engage in good natured debate and I've got nothing against educating people as to why their beliefs may be wrong. That is rarely a real option.

Second, they're wrong. I can't understand why someone would hate someone else for the color of their skin, who they love, who they ****, their religion, etc. It's a totally foreign notion to me.

So if I come across a group that is open to real discussion and not one-sided propaganda I'll be happy to engage them in such a manner, until then I'll be happy to let them know they're wrong via whatever method is available to me.

I mean, sure. I personally have never met anyone who is that openly bigoted, so I suppose I don't see it as a huge societal issue. That white supremacist tiki torch thing was like 200 people, right?


I come across people like that more often online than out in the real world. But they are there. Hell, some guy got arrested today in Tampa for hitting a couple people with a megaphone because they tried to slap his sign out of his hand.

This is that guy, the real kicker is that he's black:
Image

Image

Image

Image

That ***hole has been doing this in Tampa for years. I see him on the road probably once or twice a year just during my daily driving.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Ken Carson » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:57 pm

I don't know for sure, but I think he is calling those businesses racist, not promoting the KKK.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby Cheb » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:31 pm

I believe that freedom of speech is a sacred right. You can say whatever you want, and the government should never enact a law about what a person can and cannot say. That's a dangerous road, and one I pray we never start to go down as a nation.

That said, one's government protected freedom of speech doesn't mean the speaker should ever be free from the consequences of that speech. If some racist shitstain walks up to a group of black people and starts shouting N-bombs at them. If they kick his ass, they are not stifling his right to freedom of speech. That speech has consequence. The racist wants his speech to be free of consequence, which is childish and stupid.

Say what you want. But if you sow the wind, then don't bitch when you reap a whirlwind.
Image
Cheb
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:00 pm
Location: West Coast is best coast
Has thanked: 60 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Free Speech / Hate Speech

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:06 pm

Ken Carson wrote:I don't know for sure, but I think he is calling those businesses racist, not promoting the KKK.


I'm not really sure there's any logic or reason behind any of it.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PanteraCanes and 6 guests