Freedom of Speech

[Crezth]

1. I don't like homosexuals.

2. Homosexuality is a sin according to my faith.

3. Gay marriage should not be allowed.

4. Civil unions for gays should not be allowed.

5. We need new sodomy laws.

6. We should restore the Old Testament laws against homosexuality.

7. Homosexuals are f--s

8. Homosexuals are abominations.

9. Homosexuality is an abomination.

10. Everyone should just start lynching the gays.

To give you an idea of how reprehensible it is to parse out hate speech, here is the same notion proposed in terminology you are probably moe used to being discomforted by:

1. I don't like blacks.

2. Blacks are inferior according to my faith.

3. Interracial marriage should not be allowed.

4. <no good parallel>

5. We need new segregation laws.

6. We should restore the Old Testament laws about slavery.

7. Blacks are n-----s.

8. Blacks are abominations.

9. Being black is an abomination.

10. Everyone should just start lynching the blacks.

It should be much more gruesomely apparent to you why, in fact, people make exceptions for hate speech.

 

[luiz]

Free speech, all the way, except for these 4 conditions:

1. Yelling FIRE in a theatre scenario
2. Hate speech against protected classes
3. Lying about a product or service you are selling in some sort of an advertisement (TV, paper, etc.)
4. News networks lying or misrepresenting facts

I don't see how you can ban hate speech against a "protected class" but not everyone else.

I say allow it against everyone.

As someone once said: "bad ideas are like vampires, they tend to die in the sun".

 

[Crezth]

Yeah but aren't you from Brazil, home of intense, massive amounts of institutional racism?

 

[GhostWriter16]

To give you an idea of how reprehensible it is to parse out hate speech, here is the same notion proposed in terminology you are probably moe used to being discomforted by:

1. I don't like blacks.

2. Blacks are inferior according to my faith.

3. Interracial marriage should not be allowed.

4. <no good parallel>

5. We need new segregation laws.

6. We should restore the Old Testament laws about slavery.

7. Blacks are n-----s.

8. Blacks are abominations.

9. Being black is an abomination.

10. Everyone should just start lynching the blacks.

It should be much more gruesomely apparent to you why, in fact, people make exceptions for hate speech.

That's not even my point. Assume they are the same. Which ones are you going to legally ban?

MAYBE the tenth one. That's just about it.


Its not apparent to me TBH. Its just plain stupid IMO. And to be honest, any world in which you'll even CONSIDER banning speech like that is a world in which nobody (Or not many people, anyhow) are going to listen to the speaker anyway. You aren't going to get gays to become a "Protected class" in a culture that hates gays.

Spoilering my critique to using the comparison at all.

Spoiler :

Some of your comparisons are valid, in a certain context, but others are just plain crap.

While it might be fair (And I would probably agree that its fair) to pair statements about homosexuals with statements about blacks, it is NOT fair to put statements about the action of homosexuality with "Being black" which is just stupid. You did that in #2 and #9.

Also your slavery comment is idiotic because the Old Testament laws about slavery had NOTHING TO DO with "Blacks being enslaved by whites." If anything at all, it was Israelites enslaving other people (Whether Israelite or not.) I think there were some prractical differences between OT slavery, and 1800's slavery, but even if there weren't, the OT does not defend the practice of whites enslaving blacks, in spite of what interpretations idiots might have cooked up over the years to defend their OWN sinful lifestyle of slave-owning.

For the record, the only ones on my list I would even agree with are #2, #9 (In the context that lying is also an abomination, its the sin, not the people, and its not a statement I'd make due to the ease of misunderstanding) and sort of #3. I strongly disagree with the rest of the statements on my list. But that's hardly the point. The point is whether that speech should be ALLOWED. And in both the gay and black cases, any of the first nine statements should absolutely be legal (I'm a bit torn on the tenth, I think it should be illegal, but not prosecutable unless it actually creates clear and present danger not to do so.)

 

[Crezth]

That's not even my point. Assume they are the same. Which ones are you going to legally ban?

Me? None, dude. It's not my decision to make. How could I possibly impose limitations to speech on anyone else? But it's worth being aware, at least, of the very real dangers created by hate speech.

put statements about the action of homosexuality with "Being black" which is just stupid.

there's good evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a trick of the gene, and so yeah, it makes about as much sense to condemn it as skin pigments, hair color, IQ, or arm length.

 

[luiz]

Yeah but aren't you from Brazil, home of intense, massive amounts of institutional racism?

Yes, unfortunately in Brazil there is intense and massive institutional racism in the form of mandatory racial quotas for blacks, indians and mulattos. The government discriminates among citizens based on their skin color, a disgrace. In some public institutions the race of the applicants is examined and determined by a "committee of racial experts" who probably use Nazi techniques. In one famous case the racial court ruled that one identical twin was white and other black (true story).

But in this country bad ideas are not allowed to die in the sun. Racism is a crime for which there is a mandatory jail sentence here (there is no mandatory jail sentence for murder, so you can escape prison if you kill someone, but if you use a racial offense). "Offensive" films like "Innocence of the Muslims" are frequently banned in Brazil (Innocence of the Muslims was banned last week).

 

[History_Buff]

I don't see how you can ban hate speech against a "protected class" but not everyone else.

I say allow it against everyone.

As someone once said: "bad ideas are like vampires, they tend to die in the sun".

The "protected class" usually means "identifiable minority". So you can make all sorts of remarks about those with an A blood type, like Justin Beiber, or still have their appendixes or whatever, because it's kind of hard to pick those people from a line up. It's hard to vilify an entire class like that.

Whereas saying the same thing about Redheads, Women, Blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Roma (as our own resident waste of a human being Ezra Levant just did), is off limits.

 

[luiz]

The "protected class" usually means "identifiable minority". So you can make all sorts of remarks about those with an A blood type, like Justin Beiber, or still have their appendixes or whatever, because it's kind of hard to pick those people from a line up. It's hard to vilify an entire class like that.

Whereas saying the same thing about Redheads, Women, Blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Roma (as our own resident waste of a human being Ezra Levant just did), is off limits.

Can't you make jokes about redheads, though?

I also don't see how to equate religious / ideological positions with biological ones. A lot of valid criticism that can be made at the former would be plain prejudice if applied to the latter (eg, "Scientologists are dumb" vs "blacks are dumb").

My point being that it's so hard (and arbitrary) to draw the line that it's best not to draw it at all.

I don't think there is a lot more hate-mongering versus minorities in the US than in other places that enact restrictions on hate speech. The opposite is probably true, at least as far as mainstream media goes.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The "protected class" usually means "identifiable minority". So you can make all sorts of remarks about those with an A blood type, like Justin Beiber, or still have their appendixes or whatever, because it's kind of hard to pick those people from a line up. It's hard to vilify an entire class like that.

Whereas saying the same thing about Redheads, Women, Blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Roma (as our own resident waste of a human being Ezra Levant just did), is off limits.

If that's your criteria, why the heck are gays included? You couldn't pick them up in a lineup either? And heck, Christians or Muslims either? (Not sure if you meant race or religion with "Jews".

 

[AlpsStranger]

I may be more "free speechy" than most lefties on this forum, but I would draw the line at incitement to violence. Whipping up a crowd of 200 people in bedsheets is a little different than publishing "The Bell Curve," for instance.

By the way, I probably do support some speech restrictions that GhostWriter16 wouldn't. I don't think we'd see eye to eye if a teacher were preaching to his class in a public school, for instance.

 

[Farm Boy]

I may be more "free speechy" than most lefties on this forum, but I would draw the line at incitement to violence. Whipping up a crowd of 200 people in bedsheets is a little different than publishing "The Bell Curve," for instance.

By the way, I probably do support some speech restrictions that GhostWriter16 wouldn't. I don't think we'd see eye to eye if a teacher were preaching to his class in a public school, for instance.

Well, you would need to define "preaching" and a whole bunch of other stuff. You also need to define "whipping up a crowd" as well. Certainly belonging to the KKK is not illegal in itself, and getting a group of Klansmen excited is also not illegal. "Let's go down the street and burn X down nao!" while talking to a group of potentially violent extremists tho? That's a bit different.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I may be more "free speechy" than most lefties on this forum, but I would draw the line at incitement to violence. Whipping up a crowd of 200 people in bedsheets is a little different than publishing "The Bell Curve," for instance.

By the way, I probably do support some speech restrictions that GhostWriter16 wouldn't. I don't think we'd see eye to eye if a teacher were preaching to his class in a public school, for instance.

If you're defining "Preaching" as "Preaching" and not just something like the statement "I'm a Christian" if the issue gets brought up, and you're defining "School" as a public, not private, school, I'd agree with you. I wouldn't lock up a teacher that "Preached to their kids" but I'd surely fire them.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If you're defining "Preaching" as "Preaching" and not just something like the statement "I'm a Christian" if the issue gets brought up, and you're defining "School" as a public, not private, school, I'd agree with you. I wouldn't lock up a teacher that "Preached to their kids" but I'd surely fire them.

I mean preaching literally, and I mean public school as, quite literally, public school.

I had many teachers who didn't make it a secret they were Christian, but I don't recall ever feeling like I was under attack or they were trying to convert me.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I mean preaching literally, and I mean public school as, quite literally, public school.

I actually thought you just said "Preaching in school" the first time. Didn't realize "Public" was in your original post. Sorry

To which, I agree with you, although "Banned" isn't the word I would use to describe how I think it should be treated. I think that preaching in school is just cause to fire a teacher. I think you could make a decent case for a lawsuit. But criminal charges would definitely not be appropriate for such a thing, IMO.

I had many teachers who didn't make it a secret they were Christian, but I don't recall ever feeling like I was under attack or they were trying to convert me.

Yeah, that I'm OK with, same if they said they were a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever. If it comes up, you should be allowed to discuss it. I do think it is out of line for public school teachers to try to proselytize students, however. I'd agree with you there.

 

[History_Buff]

Can't you make jokes about redheads, though?

I also don't see how to equate religious / ideological positions with biological ones. A lot of valid criticism that can be made at the former would be plain prejudice if applied to the latter (eg, "Scientologists are dumb" vs "blacks are dumb").

My point being that it's so hard (and arbitrary) to draw the line that it's best not to draw it at all.

I don't think there is a lot more hate-mongering versus minorities in the US than in other places that enact restrictions on hate speech. The opposite is probably true, at least as far as mainstream media goes.

Well, you're free to make jokes about things, there being a difference between a joke and hate speech.

And it is hard to draw the line. Very hard. But advocating genocide is something that should not happen, like, ever, so I'd say the line has to exist.

If that's your criteria, why the heck are gays included? You couldn't pick them up in a lineup either? And heck, Christians or Muslims either? (Not sure if you meant race or religion with "Jews".

Well, because it seems I was mistaken in my definition of "identifiable group". The actual Canadian statute defines it as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

And then there's all sort of exceptions about why something can't be hate speech. Most notably, if it's true, it can't be hate speech. And somewhat disappointingly, if you are, in good faith, trying to establish a position based on a religious teaching, it's also not hate speech.

 

[Disgustipated]

I should mention that whites will not be a majority for much longer. And where I live, we no longer represent more than 50% of the population (although more than any other group for now). I don't see why whites can be hated, but not other groups.

For the record, I don't think whites are discriminated against. That's laughable to say the least. But I will say it's acceptable to make jokes about whites, while it's not acceptable to make jokes about any other groups. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, just an observation.