Popular Feminist Takes 'The Red Pill' : Beds White Supremacist

[Senethro]

Oh, speaking of which, still waiting about that :

'cause you know, you managed to twice openly lie and put words in my mouth that were the opposite of what I said, but when it's about facts, suddendly the silence is deafening.

My apologies Akka, I was trying to avoid criticizing you further and so censoring you with my SJW thought control.

How should I engage you without accidentally infringing on your free speech rights?

 

[Akka]

My apologies Akka, I was trying to avoid criticizing you further and so censoring you with my SJW thought control.

How should I engage you without accidentally infringing on your free speech rights?

Well, I think your answers kind of make my case. Don't really need to add anything when you're so eager to exactly prove what I said right.

 

[Senethro]

Just as tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance, free speech cannot tolerate censorship.

- Censorship : silencing people disagreeing with them is what happens when they gather the clout to do so. Speakers that they disagree with who are booed out of stage, protests to prevent them to express themselves, call for resignation when someone voices an opinion which displease them, etc. That's textbook definition of censorship.

As we see in an early page you make a special definition of censorship for your own use that pretty much amounts to "Criticism, but when SJWs do it".

So, yeah, you are actually saying that when SJWs, that poorly defined term, criticize then it constitutes censorship. A great unjustifiable wrongdoing that should not be allowed.

And, further clarification, its the different attitudes to criticism based on if you or someone else are doing it that looks like hypocrisy in my eyes.

 

[Akka]

Ah yeah, "preventing someone to express themselve" is "criticism" and not "censorship" just because it's not the state doing it
Well, I guess it fits nicely with the SJW habits of redefining words on the fly according to what's convenient (after all, we have "racism" which is redefined as not applicable to whites, "phobia" which is redefined as "not wanting to sleep with", why not "criticism" redefined as "preventing people I don't like to speak").
And gratz for avoiding the conceptual point to focus on semantic. Yet another great example of the typical "good faith" usual of SJW.

Well, nothing to add now it seems. When hypocrisy and partisanship become such a basis for the entire mindset, this is probably too far to be fixable - at least we now truly have the Republican equivalent on the other side, with the exact same switching of standards according to who is doing what. Trump would be proud.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Dear Valessa,

good post. I am a lazy sack of carrots so I wont quote your post. Hope thats okay with you.

Also true, however, the German government most certainly tries to crack down on people posting negative things about refugees on social media, even if they reflect reality - in the name of the leftist voterbase who are heavily in favor of that type of censorship.

This is true, though Commodore said people were fined or even locked up for speaking out against the government. That is different from making death threats to refugees.

My example earlier showed that speaking out (even if you are just building gallows..) against the government is not punished at all, compared to speaking out against jews, muslims, and so forth.

In which case jail IS a likely consequence. So really, the only reason nobody has been jailed for that sort of behavior, is that nobody has continued to do it until they were jailed for it.

Yes, that is also what the lawyer later says in the interview. The point of my post was that if you go as far as building a gallow and publicly asking for someone to be lynched is still somehow not enough to warrant jail time, then I doubt it will ever come this far. But I did express this poorly! Technically, as you say, it is possible. Thanks for the civil discussion and all, hope you have a great day.

 

[Senethro]

Akka, protest is also exercise of free speech even when done by people you don't like. As long as it doesn't become criminal or institutional harassment/interference then they get to speak too.

The semantic discussion is necessary when you twist words.

 

[Ryika]

If by "protest" you mean you're yelling at the people already there, trying to speak, that's hardly free speech. That's you denying their speech.
If however by "protest" means that you hold your own event somewhere near them to show presence and counter what they have to say, but far enough away that your event doesn't shut down theirs, yes, that's free speech.

 

[Commodore]

Well this is just great.

As I understood the conversation, they were discussing the usage of laws to censor the opposition. So in that context, let's go over your examples:

Current example

Doesn't stop them from expressing their opinion, now does it? Since when is being allowed to go to press events required to express an opinion?

Historical example

He is literally holding a newspaper that has a massive headline criticizing him in that picture. How is that an example of censorship? Not your best work on that one.

But he didn't try to do it through legislation. That's what was being discussed.

Again, how does that stop them from expressing their opinion? Just because the person you are expressing criticism against refuses to listen to you, does not mean your right to free speech has been violated. It's like if I put someone on my ignore list here. Putting them on my ignore list doesn't stop them from posting their opinion here, it just means I won't see it.

There was this beautiful line of dialogue I should have saved when I read it, about how by defending hate speech as political speech, and thereby protected speech, you are legitimizing genocide as a valid political ideology. I'm against that.

Then you are against free speech. Which is fine, of course. Just have the courage to admit it. One of the tenets of the concept of free speech is that all opinions, no matter how abhorrent, should be allowed to be expressed. The moment you start making decisions about what opinions can and can't be expressed is the moment you have abandoned free speech.

 

[Ajidica]

Then you are against free speech. Which is fine, of course. Just have the courage to admit it.

So, what then are your thoughts about the US considering its strongest allies to be against free speech?
Germany and France have Holocaust denial laws, while the Netherlands and the UK have hate speech/incitement laws.

One of the tenets of the concept of free speech is that all opinions, no matter how abhorrent, should be allowed to be expressed. The moment you start making decisions about what opinions can and can't be expressed is the moment you have abandoned free speech.

Not in the slightest. We have freedom of religion but the moment you say your religion allows you to have sex with six year olds, out come the police.
While we treat speech slightly differently, we still have incitement laws and libel laws and there is a general assumption that while you have the right to rant on the street corner, absolutely no person or organization is required to provide you a platform. If the local newspaper decides they would rather not report on the homophobic rants of the local nutjob they are hardly "violating free speech".

 

[Ryika]

Well, our holocaust laws here in Germany are definitely anti free speech, I don't see how one could argue against that.

They're not really representative of the general state of free speech though, and instead mostly a guilt trip that's left from WW2. It's something that should probably be changed to be in line with the rest of the laws, but why would a politician ever make that argument, when it's basically career suicide to do so? So they stay in the books and don't really do anything, other than giving people who believe that it didn't happen another argument in the form of: "If it's true, why can't we talk about it?".

Still, it's obvious that Germany doesn't have the same absolutist stance on free speech that America has. Here "Free Speech" means being able to have open dialog about issues (on any issue other than the holocaust of course 8)), but at the same time as a nation we believe that limits on that are reasonable when it goes into hate speech territory. With that, we leave ourselves open to the potential of abuse of power to censor unpopular opinions, but it doesn't automatically mean that speech is not free.

 

[Commodore]

So, what then are your thoughts about the US considering its strongest allies to be against free speech?

I wasn't aware that nations must have the exact same laws and believe the exact same things to be allies. What an interesting view you have there.

Alliances are born out of mutual military or economic benefit. That's why we are allies with with the likes of Saudi Arabia despite having almost nothing in common culturally.

Not in the slightest.

Sure it is. It goes back to the saying "I don't agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."

While we treat speech slightly differently, we still have incitement laws and libel laws and there is a general assumption that while you have the right to rant on the street corner, absolutely no person or organization is required to provide you a platform. If the local newspaper decides they would rather not report on the homophobic rants of the local nutjob they are hardly "violating free speech".

Of course, but that's not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was the potential passing of laws regarding what is and is not acceptable to say. Hence the "if you were in power, you'd censor me" back and forth between Akka and Gigaz. "In power" would imply having the ability to make and enforce laws.

To me such laws, even if they are made with noble intentions, are completely unacceptable in a society that claims to value free speech.

 

[Ajidica]

I wasn't aware that nations must have the exact same laws and believe the exact same things to be allies. What an interesting view you have there.

Odd you wound mention the Saudis when I quite clearly was referring to NATO when I mentioned the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

To me such laws, even if they are made with noble intentions, are completely unacceptable in a society that claims to value free speech.

So, you are fine with removing libel laws and me distributing pamphlets claiming your wife is a cheap hooker imported from Borat-land?

 

[Commodore]

Odd you wound mention the Saudis when I quite clearly was referring to NATO when I mentioned the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Not odd at all. It was meant to highlight how just because nations are extremely different culturally, doesn't mean they can't still be allies.

So, you are fine with removing libel laws and me distributing pamphlets claiming your wife is a cheap hooker imported from Borat-land?

Yes. In fact, there was another thread (don't remember which one) where libel was being discussed and I stated that I am against such laws.

 

[Ajidica]

Not odd at all. It was meant to highlight how just because nations are extremely different culturally, doesn't mean they can't still be allies.

So every single person who has spoke about the US and our NATO allies defending our shared freedoms was lying?
That our much vaunted "special relationship" with a dreary wet island has nothing to do with a shared history of liberal values?

Yes. In fact, there was another thread (don't remember which one) where libel was being discussed and I stated that I am against such laws.

Okay, so you would totally be down with PMing me the town you live in and I'll purchase an ad in the local newspaper calling your wife a cheap hooker from Borat-land? That your mother is a crack-whore who has more strangers enter her than a New York subway?

 

[Commodore]

So every single person who has spoke about the US and our NATO allies defending our shared freedoms was lying?
That our much vaunted "special relationship" with a dreary wet island has nothing to do with a shared history of liberal values?

Nope. Not sure how you got that from what I said. I was just pointing out how it was ridiculous for you to imply that I should be against our membership in NATO because of some minor differences in opinion on free speech.

Okay, so you would totally be down with PMing me the town you live in and I'll purchase an ad in the local newspaper calling your wife a cheap hooker from Borat-land?

Just because I'm okay with you making up lies doesn't mean I have to facilitate your lies. Plus, I've been pretty open about where I live so a search of my posting history should give you the information you seek.

 

[Ajidica]

Just because I'm okay with you making up lies doesn't mean I have to facilitate your lies. Plus, I've been pretty open about where I live so a search of my posting history should give you the information you seek.

So, you don't think there should be a legal recourse if a person were to repeatedly and intentionally spread malicious and knowingly false statements about a private citizen?
Suppose Warren Buffet decided he really hated your mother and spread any number of malicious lies about her. Started a "Commodore's Mother is a crack-whore" PAC to spread awareness about that topic. Does she not deserve some legal recourse to protect her reputation?

 

[Commodore]

So, you don't think there should be a legal recourse if a person were to repeatedly and intentionally spread malicious and knowingly false statements about a private citizen?

No, and the legal system doesn't feel there should be either. Just making up lies about someone isn't enough for libel or slander. For the law to consider a lie to be libelous or slanderous, the person whom the lie was about would have to show a quantifiable level of damage that was caused by the lie. And hurt feelings or people thinking badly of you don't count. Quantifiable damage would be things like losing your job or being denied a job specifically because of the lie that was told about you.

So if I made up a lie about you, even under current laws you couldn't sue unless you could prove that my lies caused material damage or loss to you somehow.

 

[Ajidica]

No, and the legal system doesn't feel there should be either. Just making up lies about someone isn't enough for libel or slander. For the law to consider a lie to be libelous or slanderous, the person whom the lie was about would have to show a quantifiable level of damage that was caused by the lie. And hurt feelings or people thinking badly of you don't count. Quantifiable damage would be things like losing your job or being denied a job specifically because of the lie that was told about you.

On that, you are wrong.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
...
The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

http://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/defamation-faqs

Suppose your mother believes she was denied a job because Warren Buffet decided to spread the message that your mother is a crack-whore and the neighborhood bicycle. Should she not have a legal recourse to curtail Warren Buffet's false, damaging, and willfully negligent in his statements regarding a private citizen?

 

[Commodore]

oh my god commodore's posts are so funny

Thanks. Sometimes I feel like my efforts here go unappreciated.

Suppose your mother believes she was denied a job

Courts don't deal in "belief". She'd have to prove that she was denied the job specifically because of that lie. And since it's highly unlikely any company would admit to that or keep any evidence of it for fear of being sued themselves, it is unlikely she'd be able to satisfy the burden of proof.

http://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/defamation-faqs

Sure, that's technically correct, but the very small number of defamation, libel, and slander cases that actually result in a judgement for the plaintiff should tell you just how hard it is to actually meet the burden of proof. As it stands (at least in the US) it is simply way too easy to defend against an accusation of libel, defamation, or slander. And that's the way it should be.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So it seems because of a failed "gotcha" attempt we're now going to be subject to several pages of debate over libel law.