|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 04 2024 13:20 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 13:04 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 12:56 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 12:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo. The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here. I was misinterpreting it, yeah. I only glossed over it. WombaT touches on my feelings. I see no distinction between the two other than who is offended. You can no more readily control who you are on a bus with than you can what instagram shoves in front of you. Shrug, I don't see it. I'm not sure how being against banning offensive speech means I also have to be against any measure to regulate noise in general Because you implied that one case is people being too empathetic when they should just give 'em the stick, and the other was them not being empathetic enough and giving too much (in this case 'any at all') stick. You're tying the emotional element in with the comedian you posted ('You're offended! So what!") but then applying situations where you get to be the arbiter of when people being offended matters. It's inconsistent, if not just unfair. I also disagreed with your assertion that the point of free speech is to allow people to say whatever without fear of punishment, but then you turned around and were suddenly pro-punishment on something trivial.
I'm not concerned about someone getting arrested about rap lyrics because my empathetic heart bleeds for her. I don't know her and I don't care about her at all (but they are wrong for doing that to her). I'm concerned because I don't want to get arrested for something equally stupid. It has nothing to do with empathy. I don't care about Quran burners either, if you were confused about that.
Just seems like you're reaching to catch me in a contradiction. Defending freedom to express certain ideas does not necessitate that I have to defend expressing ideas at any location and any volume. It's just a weird tangent you're trying to connect.
|
On September 04 2024 13:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 13:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 13:04 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 12:56 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 12:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo. The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here. I was misinterpreting it, yeah. I only glossed over it. WombaT touches on my feelings. I see no distinction between the two other than who is offended. You can no more readily control who you are on a bus with than you can what instagram shoves in front of you. Shrug, I don't see it. I'm not sure how being against banning offensive speech means I also have to be against any measure to regulate noise in general Because you implied that one case is people being too empathetic when they should just give 'em the stick, and the other was them not being empathetic enough and giving too much (in this case 'any at all') stick. You're tying the emotional element in with the comedian you posted ('You're offended! So what!") but then applying situations where you get to be the arbiter of when people being offended matters. It's inconsistent, if not just unfair. I also disagreed with your assertion that the point of free speech is to allow people to say whatever without fear of punishment, but then you turned around and were suddenly pro-punishment on something trivial. I'm not concerned about someone getting arrested about rap lyrics because my empathetic heart bleeds for her. I don't know her and I don't care about her at all (but they are wrong for doing that to her). I'm concerned because I don't want to get arrested for something equally stupid. It has nothing to do with empathy. I don't care about Quran burners either, if you were confused about that. Just seems like you're reaching to catch me in a contradiction. Defending freedom to express certain ideas does not necessitate that I have to defend expressing ideas at any location and any volume. It's just a weird tangent you're trying to connect.
I'm not trying to catch you in a contradiction so much as express why I think your opinion on what free speech is makes no sense to me.
Earlier, you expressed "The entire reason to have freedom of speech is to be able to say something controversial or offensive without being punished for it." which I disagree with. Firstly, I disagree that it involves "say", as freedom of speech is understood to be freedom of expression - you could wear a Che Guevara shirt with the exact same protection from freedom of speech that you expect when quoting him.
Second, I disagree that the entire reason to have freedom of speech is to protect people from punishment. The entire reason to have freedom of speech is to allow freedom of expression, so that you can say "Biden is a stupid fuck" and the US government won't come arrest you for it. Same with "Pepsi endorses slavery" or "Twinkies are literally cocaine" without those companies being allowed and enabled to silence you for expressing negative opinions about them. Those companies are still well within their rights to sue you for libel and/or otherwise protect their interests, but they need to have an actual case to do so.. Making direct claims exactly like "Pepsi endorses slavery" is not protected by freedom of speech, and you could rightly be subjected to a libel case.
In the case of the UK girl, her freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression allows her to pay homage to her dead friend. Unfortunately, this doesn't supersede everything, and she's apparently still not allowed to post racial slurs on instagram. Her rights to free speech were not impugned, her rights to post racial slurs as a UK citizen were. The same would be true if her dead friend was deeply racist and she posted "Samuel died. In homage, I think we should kill all muslims" not because she's not allowed to pay homage to her friend, but because a hate speech is still hate speech.
We agree that the case of the UK girl is stupid and she shouldn't have been arrested, much less charged, fined, and put on a curfew. We disagree on it being a matter of free speech.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I don't think it should be.
|
How can you say it's not a matter of free speech? She was arrested for something she said on the internet. I'm very confused there. Declaring her rights to freedom of speech were not impugned because she doesn't have a right to say racial slurs is a fine piece of circular reasoning.
Meanwhile you're trying to link the loud music player into the freedom of speech debate. You might actually have a point if the rule was something like "you're allowed to play pop music loudly but you can't play gospel music loudly." In that case the content of the speech (music) is the differentiating factor that would make it a free speech issue. In this case it's just that you can't play any music loudly which makes it not about the speech but about the loudness.
On September 04 2024 14:02 Fleetfeet wrote:
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I don't think it should be.
Is that what they say before they send you to the re-education camp?
|
I mean, freedom of speech is rather explicitly freedom from legal sanctions for your speech, so by definition this girl in the UK was a freedom of speech issue. When people say 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence' they mean consequences like being ostracized from your community, having people think you're a bit of a cunt, having trouble finding a job, that sort of thing.
The only real discussion to be had here is about where the line between freedom of speech and hate speech lies (or if there should be any line there at all), and whether what that girl did would fall on the 'hate speech' side of that line.
Personally, I agree in general with the UK's view on this, though I think they way missed the mark in this particular case and I can certainly see why it's used by people as an example of government overreach and censorship.
|
On September 04 2024 14:43 BlackJack wrote:How can you say it's not a matter of free speech? She was arrested for something she said on the internet. I'm very confused there. Declaring her rights to freedom of speech were not impugned because she doesn't have a right to say racial slurs is a fine piece of circular reasoning. Meanwhile you're trying to link the loud music player into the freedom of speech debate. You might actually have a point if the rule was something like "you're allowed to play pop music loudly but you can't play gospel music loudly." In that case the content of the speech (music) is the differentiating factor that would make it a free speech issue. In this case it's just that you can't play any music loudly which makes it not about the speech but about the loudness.Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 14:02 Fleetfeet wrote:
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I don't think it should be. Is that what they say before they send you to the re-education camp?
To bolded:
In this case it's just that you can't instagram slur words, which makes it not about the speech but about the words.
Is that not the same goddamn thing?
On September 04 2024 14:44 Mikau313 wrote:
I mean, freedom of speech is rather explicitly freedom from legal sanctions for your speech, so by definition this girl in the UK was a freedom of speech issue. When people say 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence' they mean consequences like being ostracized from your community, having people think you're a bit of a cunt, having trouble finding a job, that sort of thing.
The only real discussion to be had here is about where the line between freedom of speech and hate speech lies (or if there should be any line there at all), and whether what that girl did would fall on the 'hate speech' side of that line.
Personally, I agree in general with the UK's view on this, though I think they way missed the mark in this particular case and I can certainly see why it's used by people as an example of government overreach and censorship.
Noted. That's not what I'm saying when I say that phrase, but I hear you.
I don't disagree that freedom of speech is freedom from legal sanctions for your speech, I just disagree that they should be, or are, absolute freedoms. The existence of libel and slander as legal actions seem to suggest that they aren't absolute. Same with hate speech. It makes me curious what BJ thinks are valid legal barriers to one's freedom of expression. Bus boy, arguably, is just expressing his love of music, and his freedom of speech is being impugned by these pesky public disturbance and noise violations.
|
On September 04 2024 15:02 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 14:43 BlackJack wrote:How can you say it's not a matter of free speech? She was arrested for something she said on the internet. I'm very confused there. Declaring her rights to freedom of speech were not impugned because she doesn't have a right to say racial slurs is a fine piece of circular reasoning. Meanwhile you're trying to link the loud music player into the freedom of speech debate. You might actually have a point if the rule was something like "you're allowed to play pop music loudly but you can't play gospel music loudly." In that case the content of the speech (music) is the differentiating factor that would make it a free speech issue. In this case it's just that you can't play any music loudly which makes it not about the speech but about the loudness.On September 04 2024 14:02 Fleetfeet wrote:
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I don't think it should be. Is that what they say before they send you to the re-education camp? To bolded: In this case it's just that you can't instagram slur words, which makes it not about the speech but about the words.
Loudness =/= speech
Words = speech
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
On September 04 2024 13:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 12:43 WombaT wrote:
Shouldn’t people just toughen up and learn some resilience to someone playing their shite music overly loudly on a bus? Eh, they shouldn’t have to. We should all be able to follow the basic rules of polite society in shared spaces. Caning is probably too far but let’s not place the burden on everyone else following the rules. Toughening up is for when there’s a crying baby on public transport. When an adult is deliberately causing the issue then tutting is called for.
Caning is too soft a punishment arguably, especially as there seems a directly proportional link between loudness of music on public transport and the shiteness of said music
I may have been slightly facetious on that post like
On September 04 2024 13:20 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 13:04 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 12:56 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 12:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo. The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here. I was misinterpreting it, yeah. I only glossed over it. WombaT touches on my feelings. I see no distinction between the two other than who is offended. You can no more readily control who you are on a bus with than you can what instagram shoves in front of you. Shrug, I don't see it. I'm not sure how being against banning offensive speech means I also have to be against any measure to regulate noise in general Because you implied that one case is people being too empathetic when they should just give 'em the stick, and the other was them not being empathetic enough and giving too much (in this case 'any at all') stick. You're tying the emotional element in with the comedian you posted ('You're offended! So what!") but then applying situations where you get to be the arbiter of when people being offended matters. It's inconsistent, if not just unfair. I also disagreed with your assertion that the point of free speech is to allow people to say whatever without fear of punishment, but then you turned around and were suddenly pro-punishment on something trivial.
Perhaps the solution is to beat people with carrot sticks. Best of both worlds.
I mean in fairness to BJ he’s just running into an issue many, many a person has, whether one acknowledges it or not. It’s extremely difficult to live life as an entirely logical being according to some moral or ideological framework. Nobody can do this and will have to make all sorts of seemingly arbitrary distinctions, although the degree to which one does so versus consistency will of course vary hugely.
I think where some get it wrong is almost splitting observable, happening phenomena in the immediate physical environment, and say one’s reaction to something they’ve read into completely discrete categories.
Like loud music is there, it’s present and it’s annoying, it’s natural to be annoyed by it. But if you say, read something heinous and it irritates you, you should somehow be able to control that reaction.
In both examples you can certainly control how you process and deal with them subsequently, but I don’t think we’re fundamentally wired to initially respond differently in either.
Of all the homespun wisdom and popularly repeated phrases, I can’t think of one that is more incorrect, or at least incorrectly invoked than ‘sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.’ I mean they do, it’s just part of how humans operate.
Alas I haven’t crafted a more accurate one that’s anywhere near as catchy just yet.
I can’t overstress that I’m not observing this in order to make a case that free speech should be trampled, but I think this misconception can definitely underpin a free speech absolutist worldview and that I think that’s foundationally flawed
|
On September 04 2024 15:55 WombaT wrote:
Like loud music is there, it’s present and it’s annoying, it’s natural to be annoyed by it. But if you say, read something heinous and it irritates you, you should somehow be able to control that reaction.
Both parties should be able to control their reaction. I don't think bus riders should stab loud music players either, in case that wasn't clear. Both groups can also be annoyed and both groups can also be irritated.
It's really confounding how you guys keep trying to link the loud music thing to the free speech thing. You're also not allowed to eat on some trains. You're also not allowed to smoke on trains. What's next, if I don't think you should smoke on trains then I'm contradicting myself? Surely you should have freedom to express your love for tobacco. Afterall how different is burning fags from burning Qurans?
|
“She made it all up to make up for the fact that she and Sleepy Joe have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS for the INCOMPETENT AFGHANISTAN Withdrawal - THE MOST EMBARRASSING DAY IN U.S. HISTORY!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump now "truths" that all the fuzz about arlington made up by the democrats.
Army confirmed an employee was pushed aside when trying to stop the photo op.
|
On September 04 2024 15:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 15:02 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 14:43 BlackJack wrote:How can you say it's not a matter of free speech? She was arrested for something she said on the internet. I'm very confused there. Declaring her rights to freedom of speech were not impugned because she doesn't have a right to say racial slurs is a fine piece of circular reasoning. Meanwhile you're trying to link the loud music player into the freedom of speech debate. You might actually have a point if the rule was something like "you're allowed to play pop music loudly but you can't play gospel music loudly." In that case the content of the speech (music) is the differentiating factor that would make it a free speech issue. In this case it's just that you can't play any music loudly which makes it not about the speech but about the loudness.On September 04 2024 14:02 Fleetfeet wrote:
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I don't think it should be. Is that what they say before they send you to the re-education camp? To bolded: In this case it's just that you can't instagram slur words, which makes it not about the speech but about the words. Loudness =/= speech Words = speech
Ooo, fun!
cartoons = speech
odour = speech
noise = speech
dance = speech
I could make a sculpture of (insert Canadian figure here) and, in a public place, take a shit on it's head while a radio played a song of theirs in reverse. Very artistic. Rightly, I would be at some point charged with indecent exposure and likely other things because I did those things. My right to free speech (Speech, in this case, including sculpture, odour, gesture and a number of other things) would not be impugned, though it would also not serve as a magical immunity shield against all prosecution. I would be prosecuted for the means by which I chose to implement my speech (the 'words' I chose to use) and not the speech itself. Had I done the same performance in a legal manner, my speech would stand free for all to see EVEN IF the person in question was really really mad that I don't like them.
You seem real hung up on this simple 'sentences = words = speech' idea. I think it's dumb that UK girl got convicted and got anything for serious consequences at all. That said, nobody convicted her because of what she was trying to say (her 'speech'). She was convicted because of her words. I don't think this is a terribly profound distinction.
In any case, I appreciate the responses, BJ, and I'll stop shitting up the thread now.
On September 04 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 15:55 WombaT wrote:
Like loud music is there, it’s present and it’s annoying, it’s natural to be annoyed by it. But if you say, read something heinous and it irritates you, you should somehow be able to control that reaction. Both parties should be able to control their reaction. I don't think bus riders should stab loud music players either, in case that wasn't clear. Both groups can also be annoyed and both groups can also be irritated.
Hard agree.
|
On September 04 2024 16:43 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +“She made it all up to make up for the fact that she and Sleepy Joe have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS for the INCOMPETENT AFGHANISTAN Withdrawal - THE MOST EMBARRASSING DAY IN U.S. HISTORY!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump now "truths" that all the fuzz about arlington made up by the democrats. Army confirmed an employee was pushed aside when trying to stop the photo op.
The backlash against Trump for that Arlington / Section 60 fiasco is lasting for a surprisingly long time now (a full week), because Trump continues to lie about the situation and make things even worse for himself. He's just utterly incapable of apologizing or letting things go.
|
On September 04 2024 16:56 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 15:35 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 15:02 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 14:43 BlackJack wrote:How can you say it's not a matter of free speech? She was arrested for something she said on the internet. I'm very confused there. Declaring her rights to freedom of speech were not impugned because she doesn't have a right to say racial slurs is a fine piece of circular reasoning. Meanwhile you're trying to link the loud music player into the freedom of speech debate. You might actually have a point if the rule was something like "you're allowed to play pop music loudly but you can't play gospel music loudly." In that case the content of the speech (music) is the differentiating factor that would make it a free speech issue. In this case it's just that you can't play any music loudly which makes it not about the speech but about the loudness.On September 04 2024 14:02 Fleetfeet wrote:
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I don't think it should be. Is that what they say before they send you to the re-education camp? To bolded: In this case it's just that you can't instagram slur words, which makes it not about the speech but about the words. Loudness =/= speech Words = speech Ooo, fun! cartoons = speech odour = speech noise = speech dance = speech I could make a sculpture of (insert Canadian figure here) and, in a public place, take a shit on it's head while a radio played a song of theirs in reverse. Very artistic. Rightly, I would be at some point charged with indecent exposure and likely other things because I did those things. My right to free speech (Speech, in this case, including sculpture, odour, gesture and a number of other things) would not be impugned, though it would also not serve as a magical immunity shield against all prosecution. I would be prosecuted for the means by which I chose to implement my speech (the 'words' I chose to use) and not the speech itself. Had I done the same performance in a legal manner, my speech would stand free for all to see EVEN IF the person in question was really really mad that I don't like them. You seem real hung up on this simple 'sentences = words = speech' idea. I think it's dumb that UK girl got convicted and got anything for serious consequences at all. That said, nobody convicted her because of what she was trying to say (her 'speech'). She was convicted because of her words. I don't think this is a terribly profound distinction. In any case, I appreciate the responses, BJ, and I'll stop shitting up the thread now. Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 15:55 WombaT wrote:
Like loud music is there, it’s present and it’s annoying, it’s natural to be annoyed by it. But if you say, read something heinous and it irritates you, you should somehow be able to control that reaction. Both parties should be able to control their reaction. I don't think bus riders should stab loud music players either, in case that wasn't clear. Both groups can also be annoyed and both groups can also be irritated. Hard agree.
Cheers. We should probably go back to US Politics now
|
On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech.
How far does this limitation extend?
Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran?
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
On September 04 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech. How far does this limitation extend? Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran?
I don’t think either should be banned personally, but I do find flag-burning often tends to be as part of some protest against a state or specific state policy, burning of whatever religious symbol often tends to be targeting the people within that particular community
|
On September 04 2024 17:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech. How far does this limitation extend? Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran? I don’t think either should be banned personally, but I do find flag-burning often tends to be as part of some protest against a state or specific state policy, burning of whatever religious symbol often tends to be targeting the people within that particular community
Maybe this is the case.
I don't find it easy to distinguish someone doing something because they are against the beliefs of a faith and because they are against the believers.
These things often blur together, and I can't see a way you could prove the subtle-ish difference in intention when it comes to charging people.
Would I burn a Qaran? Probably not, but I sympathise with those that would on the grounds that they reject the beliefs of Islam. Same with the US flag tbh.
|
On September 04 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech. How far does this limitation extend? Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran?
We managed in our anti-discrimination laws. Religion is a protected category, nationality isn't. It really doesn't seem like a particularly difficult distinction to make.
In practice, the cases where Qurans get burned are also rather different from those where flags get burned. So even looking at the praxis we can find sufficient distinction to make the difference. And finally, this tangent started because Denmark has a law that specifically forbids the burning of the Quran, showing that it's not just a hypothetical.
So, yes, both in symbolism and in praxis I can justify burning a flag in ways that doesn't justify burning the Quran.
|
They have passed laws to forbid burning religious texts in Denmark. The intentions were good enough, the burning let extremists on both sides define the agenda. As mentioned, there is no good reason for burning something in public except showing disrespect.
Turning it into law is a different matter, though, and the Danish government has been trolled for it. You can't tell the difference between a blank book and a religious text after it is burned, so how can anyone ever be convicted?
Trying to regulate the freedom of expression by law is both tricky and dangerous. I do not think you can claim an absolute right not to be upset by someone seeking to upset you.
|
On September 04 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech. How far does this limitation extend? Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran?
You may burn symbols and flags as they are somewhat abstract but you must not burn books, since they are a more exact product of human expression. How about this type of distinction?
|
On September 04 2024 21:57 PVJ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech. How far does this limitation extend? Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran? You may burn symbols and flags as they are somewhat abstract but you must not burn books, since they are a more exact product of human expression. How about this type of distinction?
I would reject it.
Burning an exact product of human expression is something I would say shouldn't necessarily be illegal. I have some VHS tapes that i would be absolutely fine burning.
Put it this way, I could say that burning the Quran is the exact product of my human expression.
I would say you could make both illegal (books or flags) on public order grounds.
On September 04 2024 21:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 03 2024 06:40 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 04:49 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post? As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4. Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way. The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor. Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it. Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech. How far does this limitation extend? Do you think burning a country's flag should be illegal? Can you justify burning a flag but in a way that doesn't justify burning the Quran? We managed in our anti-discrimination laws. Religion is a protected category, nationality isn't. It really doesn't seem like a particularly difficult distinction to make. In practice, the cases where Qurans get burned are also rather different from those where flags get burned. So even looking at the praxis we can find sufficient distinction to make the difference. And finally, this tangent started because Denmark has a law that specifically forbids the burning of the Quran, showing that it's not just a hypothetical. So, yes, both in symbolism and in praxis I can justify burning a flag in ways that doesn't justify burning the Quran.
I don't see how it is any more or less justifiable to discriminate based on nationality than discriminating against someone based on their religion.
|
Laws are not made for socially agreeable people, they're made for those who cause unrest. The problem with an absolutist view on free speech is that extremists like to abuse every conceivable angle, and they're more willing to face consequences for it because of their extremism. They establish a grey area in which an absolutist view breaks down in practice.
Note that none of this is a value judgement of agreeableness or extremism. In an oppressive state, extremists are the good guys (given that they're anti-establishment). This is important to understand, because extremists always view themselves as the good guys. They won't stop causing unrest unless they're made to stop. If lawful tools to stop them don't exist, then unlawful tools will be used (hence Antifa counter-aggression for example).
To prevent such an escalation, free speech can never be absolute. The question is how far the law can go before it becomes as oppressive as the extremists who stir up unrest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
