mclumber1 Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 The only speech worth protecting is the speech that everyone agrees with. Canada to Make Online Hate Speech a Crime Punishable by $16,000 Fine GIZMODO.COM The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 I have no issues with this. Absolute freedom is a bonkers idea, and the US has proven that ten times over (and should be a warning to other developed nations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 35 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: The only speech worth protecting is the speech that everyone agrees with. Canada to Make Online Hate Speech a Crime Punishable by $16,000 Fine GIZMODO.COM The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country. If you don't like it, you can get oot not go there in the first place. Or just don't use hate speech. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 This is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Is Canadian hate speech something like, "Ah you hoser you spilled a glass of water on my table cloth, I'm so sorry for setting it too close to you!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 5 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said: Is Canadian hate speech something like, "Ah you hoser you spilled a glass of water on my table cloth, I'm so sorry for setting it too close to you!" Close. Hate speech in Canada is when someone does something bad (accidentally) to you, but you don't also say sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Quote “It threatens the safety and well-being of its targets.” I disagree, which is why I disagree with such laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyHell Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 That's pretty disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 2 hours ago, BloodyHell said: That's pretty disgusting. Call the mounties, this sounds like hate speech! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 On 6/28/2021 at 1:23 PM, sblfilms said: I disagree, which is why I disagree with such laws. You disagree that hate speech can threaten the health and well-being of its targets? How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 2 hours ago, Brick said: You disagree that hate speech can threaten the health and well-being of its targets? How so? I don’t believe words threaten the safety and well being of people, actions do. You don’t have to agree with that, but that is my position and as such I disagree with laws that limit saying mean things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 26 minutes ago, sblfilms said: I don’t believe words threaten the safety and well being of people, actions do. You don’t have to agree with that, but that is my position and as such I disagree with laws that limit saying mean things. I think that's a limited way to view things. Words can inspire action. If I'm on every night on the radio, TV, or Internet talking about how X people are a threat, and are going to replace us, that can inspire some crazy nutjob to violence. You don't get these crazy mass shooters killing Muslims, or Hispanic people, or any other minority without someone like Trump, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, David Duke, or any other far right fear mongering asshole grifter screaming in their ear that they're being threatened. They spew hate speech, some more overtly than others, and it gets in the minds of people that would act on those thoughts. Those acts turn to violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 I agree with laws like that in principle, but who gets to decide what's hate speech and what isn't? I feel like it just eggs on the crazies' victim complex. Damn near everything can be considered hate speech to someone. I'd rather not open that door. Plus, I like my racists out in the open, where I can see them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 1 minute ago, Fizzzzle said: I agree with laws like that in principle, but who gets to decide what's hate speech and what isn't? Ahem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: Ahem. Present company excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 1 hour ago, Brick said: I think that's a limited way to view things. Words can inspire action. If I'm on every night on the radio, TV, or Internet talking about how X people are a threat, and are going to replace us, that can inspire some crazy nutjob to violence. You don't get these crazy mass shooters killing Muslims, or Hispanic people, or any other minority without someone like Trump, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, David Duke, or any other far right fear mongering asshole grifter screaming in their ear that they're being threatened. They spew hate speech, some more overtly than others, and it gets in the minds of people that would act on those thoughts. Those acts turn to violence. A dude went and shot up the congressional GOP baseball team nearly killing one because of Bernie Sanders rhetoric about healthcare. All sorts of things have inspired evil acts, so how do you create any standard besides actual incitement of violence? Curtailing mean speech isn’t a slippery slope, it’s a problem itself because as @Fizzzzlesaid, who decides what qualifies? People o this very board regularly call for or wish for the killing or harm to those for which they have political disagreements. Does that qualify? I think it is perfectly reasonable to bar incitement as it is a direct and present danger to those who are the target. But I don’t think generic mean words should be limited by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 It's almost always going to be right wingers who get cought up in these things about hate speech because, surprise surprise, they're the ones who regularly invite racial hatred. Hell, just look at who actually does domestic terror attacks, the rhetoric is right there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 I’m 100% in support of marking alt-right race-based shit as hate speech and banning the fuck out of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 42 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: It's almost always going to be right wingers who get cought up in these things about hate speech because, surprise surprise, they're the ones who regularly invite racial hatred. Hell, just look at who actually does domestic terror attacks, the rhetoric is right there Or it could be that the people who want to suppress speech are almost always lefties and as such the standards for speech suppression target their political enemies. Oh wait, it is exactly that 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 12 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Or it could be that the people who want to suppress speech are almost always lefties and as such the standards for speech suppression target their political enemies. Oh wait, it is exactly that Don't pretend that the right isn't about suppression of speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 24 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Or it could be that the people who want to suppress speech are almost always lefties and as such the standards for speech suppression target their political enemies. Oh wait, it is exactly that Guilty as charged! If given the opportunity, I would ENTHUSIASTICALLY suppress the hell out of the speech of those in opposition to me. In fact, I won't stop at speech - I would extend it to their very thoughts. And quite frankly, deep down inside in those dark places where your mind fears to tread, each and every person on this board would do the same as well - why resist remaking the world in your image if you had the opportunity? You'd be foolish no to if you had the power to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: Guilty as charged! If given the opportunity, I would ENTHUSIASTICALLY suppress the hell out of the speech of those in opposition to me. In fact, I won't stop at speech - I would extend it to their very thoughts. And quite frankly, deep down inside in those dark places where your mind fears to tread, each and every person on this board would do the same as well - why resist remaking the world in your image if you had the opportunity? You'd be foolish no to if you had the power to do so. You obviously haven’t fathered a child who is a tiny version of yourself which constantly reminds you of all the worst traits you possess. The world does NOT need more me 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 4 minutes ago, sblfilms said: You obviously haven’t fathered a child who is a tiny version of yourself which constantly reminds you of all the worst traits you possess. The world does NOT need more me Reporting this post because I'm in it and I don't like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 33 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Or it could be that the people who want to suppress speech are almost always lefties and as such the standards for speech suppression target their political enemies. Oh wait, it is exactly that Who’s working on regulating that topics related to racial inequality cannot be taught in schools, that social media platforms cannot ban political candidates, etc.? I know what you’re getting at but come on now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 3 hours ago, Kal-El814 said: Who’s working on regulating that topics related to racial inequality cannot be taught in schools, that social media platforms cannot ban political candidates, etc.? I know what you’re getting at but come on now. Since I guess it was not abundantly clear in context, I’m talking about the suppression of an individual’s ability to say whatever they want. Public school teachers or other such employees being limited in their workplace is not a concern of mine. And banning companies that want to be treated as platforms and held non-liable for whatever content is on their service shouldn’t receive such protection while also acting in an editorial fashion, so long as the content is not illegal. These things are not at all at odds with each other. Personally I think companies shouldn’t be protected from what’s on their services once they have been made aware of it AND they should be able to do what editorial nonsense they want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleronin Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Plain and simple. Free speech is what got us to this point of hyper-partisanship in this country. The ability to just make something up in this country and have it parroted by 1000s of blog site masquerading as "news outlets" and then treated as fact by people that can't understand how easy it is to debunk said thing is problematic. The internet is seriously one of mankind's greatest creations and also the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 8 hours ago, sblfilms said: I don’t believe words threaten the safety and well being of people, actions do. Falling out of an airplane doesn't threaten people, it's the goddamn ground that kills 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Xbob42 said: Falling out of an airplane doesn't threaten people, it's the goddamn ground that kills 'em! Talking about falling from an airplane does not threaten your safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 9 hours ago, sblfilms said: I don’t believe words threaten the safety and well being of people, actions do. Words lead to actions. 4 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Talking about falling from an airplane does not threaten your safety. But someone suggesting that you fall from an airplane would be beneficial could lead to someone acting on those words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said: Words lead to actions. But someone suggesting that you fall from an airplane would be beneficial could lead to someone acting on those words. Incitement is not protected speech, and it shouldn’t be. Saying mean words is not incitement. “Could” isn’t a good enough standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 55 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Incitement is not protected speech, and it shouldn’t be. Saying mean words is not incitement. “Could” isn’t a good enough standard. 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 11 hours ago, sblfilms said: I don’t believe words threaten the safety and well being of people, actions do. You don’t have to agree with that, but that is my position and as such I disagree with laws that limit saying mean things. Words can and do create a sense of permissability in people who will then take action. Maybe the problem is labeling it hate "speech" when what it really is, is stochastic terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyHell Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 11 hours ago, Uaarkson said: I’m 100% in support of marking alt-right race-based shit as hate speech and banning the fuck out of it And when the other side is in power, and they decide what is and isn't hate speech? What then? It's very easy to look at one side of the coin and only see benefits, while completely ignoring the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 34 minutes ago, BloodyHell said: And when the other side is in power, and they decide what is and isn't hate speech? What then? It's very easy to look at one side of the coin and only see benefits, while completely ignoring the other. That's where the gulags come in. They will ensure that the "other side" doesn't exist any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyHell Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: That's where the gulags come in. They will ensure that the "other side" doesn't exist any further. 😆 sure, in SFLU Fan world that works fine, in real life, not so much. 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.