Support for free speech is rising, and is higher among liberals and college graduates.

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
Currently, a teacher doesn't have the right to say those types of things within a public classroom and if they were to do so outside the classroom in a public forum they would probably be fired.

The thing is, using laws to shut these people up doesn't change their views nor does it really do much to stop the spread of their ideas. I also don't agree that people are gullible or that prone to suggestion but rather I know from experience that a person who is compelled to become a racist after going to a KKK or White Nationalist rally was probably already pretty much a bigot beforehand.

The reality is that you can't regulate shitty ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. nor can you really stop such people from spreading their shitty beliefs. Most protests and rallies are people preaching to the converted and by placing a gag on them, all you do in ensure they go underground while also playing the victim.

That said, there are some measures we as a society can take to ensure these types of protests and rallies aren't perpetuating or causing violence nor allowing people to be victimized but such legislation, as I mentioned in another post, would have to be very carefully defined.

Saying something being fireable is deterrent for such behavior is a rather weak solution since school administrators are also capable of sharing those begitrd beliefs, so what motivation would they have to fire a teacher in a town that has poor representation of minorities and there's no legal need to do so?

The idea here isn't to change anyone's belief, but to prevent speech that has a negative effect on societ as well as the victim themselves. You have no solution to this other than to disregard all the offensives and consequences until these movement become so large that they can't be ignored.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Mar 22, 2018

stufte said:
I'm assuming everyone in here arguing for deplatforming would support the deplatforming of a speaker you agree with?

Well that is where things get a bit thorny, isn't it?

When you have a radical feminist like Julie Bindel claiming that all men should be placed in internment camps, that most certainly qualifies as hate speech by any reasonable metric.

So she too should be shut down, yes?

bill crystals · Mar 22, 2018

stufte said:
I'm assuming everyone in here arguing for deplatforming would support the deplatforming of a speaker you agree with?

Of course, if there was an actual rational reason for it and not just as part of an empty Devil's Advocate on the internet. This is where 99% of "slippery slope" arguments fall down.

hydrophilic attack · Mar 22, 2018

stufte said:
I'm assuming everyone in here arguing for deplatforming would support the deplatforming of a speaker you agree with?

if by that you mean support the right of others to run non-violent, non-hate-speech, non-harassment deplatforming campaigns against speakers i agree with (and not support the actual campaign itself) then sure

but i would also support counter-deplatform campaigns against the deplatform campaign

take gamergate as an example. if you disregard the ~90% of that campaign that was hate speech, threats and harassment, and only look at the kosher part, you could consider it a deplatforming campaign organized against liberals. i don't deny the people in it their right to use their free speech to boycott journalists they don't like or whatever, as long as they do so in a non-threating non-harassing non-hate-speech way. at the same time, i would support campaigns against twitter and youtube and reddit and similar places to deplatform gamergate and let them rot on their own together with pedophiles on platforms like voat or 8chan or wherever

stufte · Mar 22, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
Well that is where things get a bit thorny, isn't it?

When you have a radical feminist like Julie Bindel claiming that all men should be placed in internment camps, that most certainly qualifies as hate speech by any reasonable metric.

So she too should be shut down, yes?

By the standards set by some here, the answer should be YES.

But I say let her speak, even if she has shitty opinions.

Deleted member 888 · Mar 22, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
Well that is where things get a bit thorny, isn't it?

When you have a radical feminist like Julie Bindel claiming that all men should be placed in internment camps, that most certainly qualifies as hate speech by any reasonable metric.

So she too should be shut down, yes?

lol, a camp with bikes and vans is alright by me

will heterosexuality survive women's liberation?
It won't, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn't be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn't survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it's shit.

And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being shit.

I would love to see a women's liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: "when you come back as human beings, then we might look again."

http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel

She appears to be British anyway, not American. It probably counts as offensive speech [by the UK Governments standard, I don't care about the above paragraph and I'm not offended], but again, anyone sane can read things like that and just see it as the ramblings of someone who isn't actually going to cause any harm other than sharing their slightly fringe thoughts.

As long as she doesn't do a #killallwhitemen tweet I'm sure the police won't arrest her

Bahar Mustafa was charged in October 2015[29] for threatening communications on a social media platform. The wording of the statement made by the police[30] suggested two separate charges, one under Section 127 and another under the Malicious Communications Act. It was widely speculated that the communications were relating to the hashtag "#killallwhitemen".

Deleted member 197 · Mar 22, 2018

i feel like this is something that should be posted everywhere lol.

I don't like seeing people saying stuff like "muh freeze peach" and that, i don't care who is wrong or right, is bad optics, we shouldn't let those idiots try to claim free speech for them, which most of the time -unless is a public institution - isn't even an issue about free speech.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
Saying something being fireable is deterrent for such behavior is a rather weak solution since school administrators are also capable of sharing those begitrd beliefs, so what motivation would they have to fire a teacher in a town that has poor representation of minorities and there's no legal need to do so?

The idea here isn't to change anyone's belief, but to prevent speech that has a negative effect on societ as well as the victim themselves. You have no solution to this other than to disregard all the offensives and consequences until these movement become so large that they can't be ignored.

In a public, state and federally funded classroom, teachers do not have unfettered free speech rights. Even in the most racist of communities, a student or parent could very easily get a teacher fired if they said something that overtly racist in class. If them losing their job isn't a large enough punitive measure, I don't know what else to tell you.

I really don't see locking such people up in our already overcrowded (and largely privatized) prison system a particularly effective solution.

And I'm curious what proof you have to back up the assertion that allowing people to state their beliefs, however vulgar or ignorant, is some broad-sweeping detriment to society. The intended targets of hate speech have the option to either rebut with their own protests and rallies or they can simply avert their gaze. (ignoring shits is one of the most effective forms of nullification) And again, if you think that such ideologies are some infectious, virulent strain that can affect people from the briefest exposure, you greatly misunderstand the many varied reasons why certain people opt to side with bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

Lastly, any movement that espouses intolerance and bigotry should be continuously monitored by law enforcement agencies but ideas alone cannot be suppressed merely because we don't like them. What you are advocating is thought-policing and gagging those whose ideas you don't like, and that is antithetical to a free society and it also opens up all sorts of complicated legal and moral issues.

Steel · Mar 22, 2018

stufte said:
I'm assuming everyone in here arguing for deplatforming would support the deplatforming of a speaker you agree with?

When I think of deplatforming I think of companies/colleges/venues not giving the person their space for a speech. Like they already can. So, yeah.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Mar 22, 2018

Audioboxer said:
lol, a camp with bikes and vans is alright by me

Would we have to work?

Because if not, yeah, I'm all for riding around in vans and cars. :)

Deleted member 888 · Mar 22, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
Would we have to work?

Because if not, yeah, I'm all for riding around in vans and cars. :)

Instead of de-platforming this woman, we should be electing her. Put all the guys in a big camp and just keep us locked there with quadbikes.

Although that interview seems to somewhat suggest it would be more suitable if every woman just became a lesbian, and also implications your sexual orientation isn't really decided at birth. I only skimmed it though. She seems a bit nutty, but no, I wouldn't want her arrested. Questions about her being de-platformed? Well, I'll leave them for anyone who has stronger feelings than me about de-platforming offensive speech. In principle, I would say if you support it, it should really swing whatever way politically has questionable people speaking. If you can attempt to de-platform, then others will potentially attempt to de-platform you.

I'm more for protest than de-platforming, but I won't be a hypocrite and even suggest I would be charging into venues and stopping things going on. I'd be sitting on my ass at home and I'll just have to be honest about that. I vote in every single election, but my protesting skills aren't too great.

This is why if it's actual terrorist organisations I do prefer the Government has the ability to arrest/charge/stop marches/speeches and so on. It means it isn't left to citizens to try and stop them. Whacky and fringe speakers? The Government should probably leave most of them to protest. De-platforming by force is more debatable because you're potentially being violent/infringing on others rights. Even people you don't like have rights, but as I just said this is why when it comes to actual terrorism I do think it's suited for the Government to be able to arrest/disperse via the state/police.

Charlottesville should not be happening and it is not the same as some nutty woman going about stating men should be kept in camps because we're all the devil or something. You can pretty much just laugh at the later suggestion whereas neo-nazi marches are more serious about racial discrimination/violence. Even if they try to congregate "peacefully" in order to skirt any incitement laws.

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
In a public, state and federally funded classroom, teachers do not have unfettered free speech rights. Even in the most racist of communities, a student or parent could very easily get a teacher fired if they said something that overtly racist in class. If them losing their job isn't a large enough punitive measure, I don't know what else to tell you.

I really don't see locking such people up in our already overcrowded (and largely privatized) prison system a particularly effective solution.

And I'm curious what proof you have to back up the assertion that allowing people to state their beliefs, however vulgar or ignorant, is some broad-sweeping detriment to society. The intended targets of hate speech have the option to either rebut with their own protests and rallies or they can simply avert their gaze. (ignoring shits is one of the most effective forms of nullification) And again, if you think that such ideologies are some infectious, virulent strain that can affect people from the briefest exposure, you greatly misunderstand the many varied reasons why certain people opt to side with bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

Lastly, any movement that espouses intolerance and bigotry should be continuously monitored by law enforcement agencies but ideas alone cannot be suppressed merely because we don't like them. What you are advocating is thought-policing and gagging those whose ideas you don't like, and that is antithetical to a free society and it also opens up all sorts of complicated legal and moral issues.

I already mentioned the KKK as an example. It wasn't until the federal government got involved and started making arrests that things started to change. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of history or what I'm even talking about. This isn't though policing, you can believe what you want. Opening your mouth and uttering vile speech to propagate hate for the purposes of disenfranchising minorities is an act. Your argument is also coming from a place of disconnection and entitlement. Entitlement in the sense you're either oblivious or uncaring towards the victims of hate speech. It's great that you care about free speech on a philosophic level, but there are people who's lives are made torturous because the hate speech has been manifested into outright antagonism and discrimination. But that's not important, right? You're operating in a fantasy land outside of any historical context if you're this ignorant of the consequences of hate speech through the generations.

I've already stated that there needs to be conditions met in order for something to be considered hate speech, so reducing my argument to an innacurate portrayal of punishing speech I don't like tells me how out of touch with this discussion you are.

Now let me ask you, what proof do you have that enacting hate speech would upend a free society?

Bold One · Mar 22, 2018

Audioboxer said:
Instead of de-platforming this woman, we should be electing her. Put all the guys in a big camp and just keep us locked there with quadbikes.

Although that interview seems to somewhat suggest it would be more suitable if every woman just became a lesbian, and also implications your sexual orientation isn't really decided at birth. I only skimmed it though. She seems a bit nutty, but no, I wouldn't want her arrested. Questions about her being de-platformed? Well, I'll leave them for anyone who has stronger feelings than me about de-platforming offensive speech. In principle, I would say if you support it, it should really swing whatever way politically has questionable people speaking. If you can attempt to de-platform, then others will potentially attempt to de-platform you.

I'm more for protest than de-platforming, but I won't be a hypocrite and even suggest I would be charging into venues and stopping things going on. I'd be sitting on my ass at home and I'll just have to be honest about that. I vote in every single election, but my protesting skills aren't too great.

This is why if it's actual terrorist organisations I do prefer the Government has the ability to arrest/charge/stop marches/speeches and so on. It means it isn't left to citizens to try and stop them. Whacky and fringe speakers? The Government should probably leave most of them to protest. De-platforming by force is more debatable because you're potentially being violent/infringing on others rights. Even people you don't like have rights, but as I just said this is why when it comes to actual terrorism I do think it's suited for the Government to be able to arrest/disperse via the state/police.

Charlottesville should not be happening and it is not the same as some nutty woman going about stating men should be kept in camps because we're all the devil or something. You can pretty much just laugh at the later suggestion whereas neo-nazi marches are more serious about racial discrimination/violence. Even if they try to congregate "peacefully" in order to skirt any incitement laws.

I don't know advocating to have half the population detained in a camp seems like reasonable grounds for deplatforming.

Deleted member 888 · Mar 22, 2018

Bold One said:
I don't know advocating to have half the population detained in a camp seems like reasonable grounds for deplatforming.

This is where common sense has to observe whether or not there is serious credible intent in what someone says. Also whether or not said person has any ability whatsoever to enact or do anything they are saying.

Examining things in such a way should be able to allow citizens, the police and the Government to determine offensive speech, from hate speech. How is Julie Bindel going to round up 50% of the population and put them into some sort of camp? She's probably being mostly satirical herself due to whatever inner rage she has inside of her. She doesn't seem to be the most well-rounded person with some of the things she is saying.

This is a clear case to me of when men could moan about being offended, but for goodness sake laugh at it versus thinking the police should arrest her. When I refer to de-platforming above I meant more so citizens forcing things be stopped, or being violent or obstructing a venue. If the venue/institution itself wants to stop an invitation I'm always cool with that. That's up to them and their rights who they want their business to host.

I think where that gets dicey is when it's a publicly funded institute, like a public University. Hence why citizen-based de-platforming normally goes on at Uni's with stuff being destroyed, buildings blocked, fire alarms pulled or whatever else. I'm not as down with some of that.

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Audioboxer said:
This is where common sense has to observe whether or not there is serious credible intent in what someone says. Also whether or not said person has any ability whatsoever to enact or do anything they are saying.

Does that matter if there are people listening to her and going, "You know what, she's right"? While this isn't hate speech, look at Pizzagate. Alex Jones was laughed at as being a nutjob that shouldn't be taken seriously, but someone did take him seriously. Yet he's still doing his thing without any repercussion. If anything, he's gained followers.

Is it better for society to ignore open sores like this until they fester and can't be ignored, or should we be more persistent in taking preventative action before things come to a head and people become hurt? How many of these hate groups are existing online, under our very noses, on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. that on the surface seem silly and delusional but have ardent supporters that may not be the most rational. Are you not worried about the ramifications of people, young and old, being taught these things and how they'll let these beliefs inform their opinions and worldview in the future?

One Eyed Willy · Mar 22, 2018

Coyote Starrk said:
I am all for free speech.

But people who preach hate and racism don't get to speak.

It's not that hard.

You're not for free speech

Aaron · Mar 22, 2018

People can feel free to say what they want and think what they want. Obviously.

The difference is whether they should have a free speech and whether they should have a paid-for platform. Fuck no to the second one.

And if people get shouted down for reprehensible views, well, that's the system working. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone is required to listen and treat your point as valid.

Your freedom to walk around wearing a swastika and shout Nazi slogans does not override my freedom to say you're a fucking asshole.

Coyote Starrk · Mar 22, 2018

One Eyed Willy said:
You're not for free speech

Yes I am.

Free Speech. Not hate speech. There is a difference.

Deleted member 888 · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
Does that matter if there are people listening to her and going, "You know what, she's right"? While this isn't hate speech, look at Pizzagate. Alex Jones was laughed at as being a nutjob that shouldn't be taken seriously, but someone did take him seriously. Is it better for society to ignore open sores like this until they fester and can't be ignored, or should we be more persistent in taking preventative action before things come to a head and people become hurt?

I'm not saying you ignore it, I'm debating the lengths at which people ask the state and police to intervene and start arresting people for holding ridiculous beliefs or uttering offensive things.

Everyday the great battle of ideas rages on between citizens of countries with friends and family arguing religion, politics, science and beliefs. People say objectively dumb ass shit, and people say subjective stuff one person can handle and another 100 get highly offended. There is no utopia of perfect speech and a sterilised world where nothing wrong is ever said and no one ever gets offended.

I know everyone KNOWS that, but when talking about free speech correctly it's about when the state and legislation will use its power to arrest, fine and imprison its own citizens.

Maybe Julie does believe the things she says, but there are others out there who say and think Jesus is coming back to have some sort of Terminator 2 Judgement day on the earth. The crazy shit people say and believe has to be weighed against the necessity to arrest or imprison them for saying said shit.

necrosis · Mar 22, 2018

stufte said:
I'm assuming everyone in here arguing for deplatforming would support the deplatforming of a speaker you agree with?

a speaker i agree with would be neither a racist nor a fascist

legacyzero · Mar 22, 2018

Audioboxer said:
Many will try and carve out the ability to go after incitement to violence (the US does have this I believe), but also direct harassment/targetting/terrorist propaganda/incitement of hatred. The UK has a religious and racial discrimination act which is quite successful at arresting people.

Some of that can be done pretty successfully without much complication. Where things get debated is mostly around someone being offended, versus you actually targetting and harassing that person specifically. Broadly speaking to use your examples, the ability to say religion is a crock of shit, and I'm going to draw Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha with massive cocks on their heads, and not see you arrested. Versus you actually going onto someone's personal FB account and saying something specific hateful to them about their personal faith, then them reporting you to the police and you may be arrested for harassment.

The UK has just charged someone with being "grossly offensive", for generalised offensive remarks in a joke about the holocaust. Under the same communications act the police dicks were charged under. Section a) of 127

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

I'm sure you can see how broad that bill is.

You've possibly seen the massive topic on it. As disgusting as the joke was, and as much of an asshole as the individual is, for me, that starts to criminalise causing offence in a general manner, versus the more specific cases of targetting citizens directly.

The second thing that is argued in that case is the setup for the video proclaimed it was a joke, but the courts have stated the citizen doesn't get to decide the context, the court does.

Ouch. Case in point lol

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Audioboxer said:
I'm not saying you ignore it, I'm debating the lengths at which people ask the state and police to intervene and start arresting people for holding ridiculous beliefs or uttering offensive things.

Everyday the great battle of ideas rages on between citizens of countries with friends and family arguing religion, politics, science and beliefs. People say objectively dumb ass shit, and people say subjective stuff one person can handle and another 100 get highly offended. There is no utopia of perfect speech and a sterilised world where nothing wrong is ever said and no one ever gets offended.

I know everyone KNOWS that, but when talking about free speech correctly it's about when the state and legislation will use its power to arrest, fine and imprison its own citizens.

There's definitely a need for people to express themselves even if what they express is stupid and offensive. But then there's expression that's intended to incite hate and victimize. Obviously there's going to be friction between what that line is, but that's always going to be the case regardless of any law. What I'm essentially saying is that we can do more to prevent victimization via hate speech form a legal standpoint than what we're doing now. We already have limits on speech for various reasons, so the idea that applying another limit other reason(s) isn't some existential crisis for a free society.

Maybe Julie does believe the things she says, but there are others out there who say and think Jesus is coming back to have some sort of Terminator 2 Judgement day on the earth. The crazy shit people say and believe has to be weighed against the necessity to arrest or imprison them for saying said shit.

I don't know how you can honestly say someone on the street yelling "The end is nigh! Praise Jesus!" is hate speech in comparison to someone arguing men should be placed in internment camps.

SugarNoodles · Mar 22, 2018

It seems like some people view the first amendment in the same capacity they view the second amendment: that it requires no regulations.

That is pretty dumb :)

Valhalla_Nights · Mar 22, 2018

Orayn said:
I support the shit out of deplatforming hatemongers because it works. If that makes me an illiberal anti free speech guy, then so be it.

The idea that you need to calmly debate genocidal rhetoric is how you get taken over by fascists.

You're implying fascits are strong when they're actually weak

Zipzo · Mar 22, 2018

Muffin said:
I mean I'm gonna doubt with expressing hate you mean say things like their religion has no place in your country and they should be thrown out for it. I'm guessing more you mean condemning their actions which you think are immoral or even hateful themselves. The former is hate speech, the latter is not.

Isn't it sort of assumed that if you feel a religion does condemning actions that are immoral and are hateful, that you'd probably want them "out of the country" (in the sense that you desire their lack of existence)? This seems like an odd spot to split the cake.

Coyote Starrk said:
The government can't sure.

But literally everywhere else in the nation can tell racists and their fuckshit followers to eat shit when they wanna speak anywhere that is controlled by private entities.

Anywhere else that actually HAS to allow it will be protested and blockaded until they see the error of their ways.

Racists and similarly minded people do not deserve the right to speak period let alone publicly.

You are right that people have the right to push back on speech they don't like. I mean, but can you imagine if they didn't? The very right to spout hate speech is the same right others have to counter that hate speech (from a constitutional POV).

It's not a conflation of what hate speech is categorized as, it's that no one person can or should be trusted to decide what is and isn't hate speech, especially not the US government.

It's an all or nothing state of being.

Now if you want to argue that we shouldn't have freedom of speech, I think that's a valid argument to pitch, though I reckon it wouldn't be a popular idea.

It's similar to the debate around the 2nd amendment for me. There's so much circular reasoning around how to interpret it, and it's wording, but for me it's just a question of whether we need the 2nd amendment at all. I personally don't see a use for it, so for me, the argument is a lot more focused and clear-cut because I can actually come from a point of arguing the necessity of a law, rather than the interpretation of it.

I believe it's a perfectly valid position to think we shouldn't have freedom of speech, I disagree with it but I think it's logical, at least.

stufte · Mar 22, 2018

necrosis said:
a speaker i agree with would be neither a racist nor a fascist

What about someone who has a strong opinion about religion? Should they be deplatformed by religious groups? What about someone who is speaking about something subjective, like sexualized characters in video games. Should that person be deplatformed because they have people who disagree with them?

Also, IMO, shutting down people who you disagree with is pretty fascist.

Deleted member 888 · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
There's definitely a need for people to express themselves even if what they express is stupid and offensive. But then there's expression that's intended to incite hate and victimize. Obviously there's going to be friction between what that line is, but that's always going to be the case regardless of any law. What I'm essentially saying is that we can do more to prevent victimization via hate speech form a legal standpoint than what we're doing now. We already have limits on speech for various reasons, so the idea that applying another limit other reason(s) isn't some existential crisis for a free society.

I don't know how you can honestly say someone on the street yelling "The end is nigh! Praise Jesus!" is hate speech in comparison to someone arguing men should be placed in internment camps.

I mostly agree with what you've said there, but we do have to debate the fringe examples because those are the ones that cause the balance of let society sort it out to potentially tip into "please Government, will you arrest this/these citizens and remove their rights/give them a permanent criminal record". Fringe cases pretty much set where the lines in the sand are.

My suggestion was more both of those statements can be carefully examined to be utterly ridiculous and that neither person actually has any capability to act on what they are saying. Julie will not be able to round up 50% of the population, and the other person requires Jesus to come flying down and start blowing shit up.

Under the UK current laws I'd propose both could be seen as offensive speech, but I wouldn't class them as hate speech. The UK Government tends to arrest for hate speech, but it hasn't used it's offensive speech legislation all that often. The nazi pug guy has just been charged with being "grossly offensive" though.

Raven117 · Mar 22, 2018

Pmichael said:
http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/1-human-dignity

Thanks for sending.

From a legal perspective, this is actually non-binding.

The dignity of the human person is not only a fundamental right in itself but constitutes the real basis of fundamental rights. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined human dignity in its preamble: 'Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.' In its judgment of 9 October 2001 in Case C-377/98 Netherlands v European Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, at grounds 70 — 77, the Court of Justice confirmed that a fundamental right to human dignity is part of Union law.
It results that none of the rights laid down in this Charter may be used to harm the dignity of another person, and that the dignity of the human person is part of the substance of the rights laid down in this Charter. It must therefore be respected, even where a right is restricted.

These explanations were originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although they do not as such have the status of law, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.

This is like the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and they are not worlds apart either.

Valhalla_Nights · Mar 22, 2018

People who post here on resetera are actually pretty conservative no matter how much they push "liberal ideas"

Just looking at the homelessness threads I've seen on here, the people are pretty cruel lmao

Valhalla_Nights · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
Do you believe the same is true of hate crimes?

Saying something and doing something are very different.

marrec · Mar 22, 2018

SugarNoodles said:
It seems like some people view the first amendment in the same capacity they view the second amendment: that it requires no regulations.

That is pretty dumb :)

I certainly think it needs less regulations. Like, outlawing hate speech is a branch too far for me.

This whole idea of "deplatforming" is silly though. Protesting Milo spewing his bullshit at a college isn't deplatorming him. He hosts Alex Jones' show from time to time now afterall.

Kyra · Mar 22, 2018

We need to be ok with ammendments.. We need to be ok with accepting that we were wrong.

I support freedom. Except when you commit a crime. What is a crime?

I support free speech.. Except when it is hate speech. What is hate speech?

I support equality for every person. Who is a person? What is equality?

The flaw has always been the interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

SugarNoodles · Mar 22, 2018

marrec said:
I certainly think it needs less regulations. Like, outlawing hate speech is a branch too far for me.

This whole idea of "deplatforming" is silly though. Protesting Milo spewing his bullshit at a college isn't deplatorming him. He hosts Alex Jones' show from time to time now afterall.

If you think it's a branch too far you probably don't understand the repercussions of unfettered hate speech on vulnerable populations.

Let me ask you this: what is your opinion on denazification in post World War 2 Germany?

marrec · Mar 22, 2018

SugarNoodles said:
Let me ask you this: what is your opinion on denazification in post World War 2 Germany?

It was a unique situation that required a unique solution.

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Audioboxer said:
I mostly agree with what you've said there, but we do have to debate the fringe examples because those are the ones that cause the balance of let society sort it out to potentially tip into "please Government, will you arrest this/these citizens and remove their rights/give them a permanent criminal record". Fringe cases pretty much set where the lines in the sand are.

My suggestion was more both of those statements can be carefully examined to be utterly ridiculous and that neither person actually has any capability to act on what they are saying. Julie will not be able to round up 50% of the population, and the other person requires Jesus to come flying down and start blowing shit up.

Under the UK current laws I'd propose both could be seen as offensive speech, but I wouldn't class them as hate speech. The UK Government tends to arrest for hate speech, but it hasn't used it's offensive speech legislation all that often. The nazi pug guy has just been charged with being "grossly offensive" though.

You don't need to round up 50% of the population, or even a large number. Look at the number of terrorist attacks committed in the United States, like the OKC Bomber. These were often people who bought into the types of beliefs you'd describe as silly and inconsequential, yet they've taken them to their extreme. I'm not too familiar with Julie, but I'm guessing she's not a comedian or someone being taken out of context. There should be no room to entertain these dangerous ideas because there's probably going to be someone who is going to buy into it.

Ryouji Gunblade · Mar 22, 2018

Kyra said:
We need to be ok with ammendments.. We need to be ok with accepting that we were wrong.

I support freedom. Except when you commit a crime. What is a crime?

I support free speech.. Except when it is hate speech. What is hate speech?

I support equality for every person. Who is a person? What is equality?

The flaw has always been the interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

Exactly. We need everybody to realize that there is nuance and that free speech is not an all-or-nothing situation. Hate speech must be defined and acted upon, for the health of the country.

SugarNoodles · Mar 22, 2018

marrec said:
It was a unique situation that required a unique solution.

That's a pretty blatant hand wave dismissal. You seriously don't have any thoughts about what would have been necessary to avoid the situation that led to its necessity?

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Valhalla_Nights said:
Saying something and doing something are very different.

Saying something is doing something. They're one and the same. You're not being very clear here. Are you saying speech has absolutely no power whatsoever?

marrec · Mar 22, 2018

SugarNoodles said:
That's a pretty blatant hand wave dismissal. You seriously don't have any thoughts about what would have been necessary to avoid the situation that led to its necessity?

I have a lot of thoughts about that, you didn't ask about that however.

I don't believe heavy handed hate speech laws would have led to any significant curbing of nazi power.

Deleted member 1120 · Mar 22, 2018

Somehow conservatives were able to make it seem like they're free speech advocates.

Kitsunelaine · Mar 22, 2018

"Free speech" is a dogwhistle in 90% of these sorts of arguments.

Valhalla_Nights · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
Saying something is doing something. They're one and the same. You're not being very clear here. Are you saying speech has absolutely no power whatsoever?

No. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions have more consequences to them than words.

A hate crime is a criminal act motivated by political discontent with someone the perpetrator perceives as an outside group member.

Hate speech is anything that causes trauma to a group. Centralized bodies of power that can decided who is the antecedent of such acts should not have consequences greater than committing actual crimes that cause bodily harm.

Deleted member 888 · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
You don't need to round up 50% of the population, or even a large number. Look at the number of terrorist attacks committed in the United States, like the OKC Bomber. These were often people who bought into the types of beliefs you'd describe as silly and inconsequential, yet they've taken them to their extreme. I'm not too familiar with Julie, but I'm guessing she's not a comedian or someone being taken out of context. There should be no room to entertain these dangerous ideas because there's probably going to be someone who is going to buy into it.

If Julie Bindle ever becomes a terrorist I'll remember to log back into Resetera and say I was wrong.

She's a self-declared radical lesbian feminist. She has some far out there views on some lesbian utopia where men are seemingly marginalized. It seems she sniffs glue a bit too much or something, but, I really don't think she's dangerous. People can hold whacky, far out or even offensive views and society quite quickly comes to the conclusion they're not actually dangerous.

Possibly just need to be debated and challenged, which we do with a lot of people who have backwards views or say outrageous things. We don't just jail them all to try to imprison our way to some perfect society where only things we approve of are uttered in public.

Bad comes with the good with freedom of speech/expression, at all levels, even in places with some restrictions. The only way you can actually try and construct complete obedience to a population outwardly speaking the same things is some sort of version of China or North Korea.

I'll personally take some radical lesbian feminists talking about camps where men ride quadbikes if it means a reasonable Government level freedom of speech/expression protection.

SugarNoodles · Mar 22, 2018

marrec said:
I have a lot of thoughts about that, you didn't ask about that however.

I don't believe heavy handed hate speech laws would have led to any significant curbing of nazi power.

You don't think making the very basis of Hitler's campaign illegal would have led to a significant effect on it? Why is that?

stufte · Mar 22, 2018

Kitsunelaine said:
"Free speech" is a dogwhistle in 90% of these sorts of arguments.

I support free speech. Tell me what I am REALLY trying to say in that. Please.

sleepInsom · Mar 22, 2018

Valhalla_Nights said:
No. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions have more consequences to them than words.

Are you saying words cant motivate action? Like there's a clear progression here that you're missing. Look at how much power our Constitution has. Those are words. Look at how much power the Declaration of Independence had. Those are words. Look at how much power speeches from civil rights leaders had. Those are words. Since someone brought it up, look at how much power Hitler's speeches had. Those are words.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Mar 22, 2018

sleepInsom said:
I already mentioned the KKK as an example. It wasn't until the federal government got involved and started making arrests that things started to change. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of history or what I'm even talking about. This isn't though policing, you can believe what you want. Opening your mouth and uttering vile speech to propagate hate for the purposes of disenfranchising minorities is an act. Your argument is also coming from a place of disconnection and entitlement. Entitlement in the sense you're either oblivious or uncaring towards the victims of hate speech. It's great that you care about free speech on a philosophic level, but there are people who's lives are made torturous because the hate speech has been manifested into outright antagonism and discrimination. But that's not important, right? You're operating in a fantasy land outside of any historical context if you're this ignorant of the consequences of hate speech through the generations.

I've already stated that there needs to be conditions met in order for something to be considered hate speech, so reducing my argument to an innacurate portrayal of punishing speech I don't like tells me how out of touch with this discussion you are.

Now let me ask you, what proof do you have that enacting hate speech would upend a free society?

Firstly, let's dispense with the cheap rhetorical tactic of accusing me of privilege, entitlement, etc. You don't know me so you are immediately coming from a place of ignorance and assumption.

I haven't been disrespectful so I would ask you treat me with that same base measure of respect.

I personally loathe racism and hate speech but I also understand the complexities of attempting to first delineate what constitutes hate speech and then applying appropriate sanctions and penalties accordingly.

As I posted earlier, something like what the Westboro Baptist Church does could very easily be classified as hate speech and treated differently because such 'protests' are actually a concerted attempt at harassment. These people specifically and with malice target grieving families and I think it could be argued that disrupting a funeral – even from a distance – isn't covered by free speech.

That said, when you speak of disenfranchisement, you have to remember that generally, words alone don't disenfranchise people. When some bloviate on You Tube talks about people of color being less than or the Holocaust being a lie, such statements are atrocious, ugly and condemnable but these words have no direct affect on policy or the law. You can't disenfranchise or otherwise oppress people with words alone and the fringe movements you talk of have no direct or even indirect influence on social policy.

Even those organizations that do operate with intent to threaten, cajole, kill, etc. do so against the law. You seem to think that by restricting their ability to congregate, assemble and espouse their message that their tide can be stemmed but the reality is that such organizations will most assuredly break hate speech laws if their membership is comfortable committing violence.

It's the equivalent of thinking a serial killer will be deterred by the threat of a traffic ticket.

And to be clear I'm not entirely against the notion but such laws would have to be incredibly narrow and carefully delineated.

Censoring Alex Jones or making it illegal for people to give an opinion publically isn't the proper course. There's a reason why the ACLU has actually defended KKK members and protected their right to stage public rallies.

Raven117 · Mar 22, 2018

Kitsunelaine said:
"Free speech" is a dogwhistle in 90% of these sorts of arguments.

No, it really isn't.

Eidan · Mar 22, 2018

Metalingus said:
Somehow conservatives were able to make it seem like they're free speech advocates.

It's amazing how they've gotten some on the far left to earnestly defend their right to advocate for the forced removal of minorities. You have people in this thread who actually believe that fiercely and vocally condemning Nazis is just as bad as being a Nazi. It's pathetic.

Valhalla_Nights · Mar 22, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
Firstly, let's dispense with the cheap rhetorical tactic of accusing me of privilege, entitlement, etc. You don't know me so you are immediately coming from a place of ignorance and assumption.

I haven't been disrespectful so I would ask you treat me with that same base measure of respect.

I personally loathe racism and hate speech but I also understand the complexities of attempting to first delineate what constitutes hate speech and then applying appropriate sanctions and penalties accordingly.

As I posted earlier, something like what the Westboro Baptist Church does could very easily be classified as hate speech and treated differently because such 'protests' are actually a concerted attempt at harassment. These people specifically and with malice target grieving families and I think it could be argued that disrupting a funeral – even from a distance – isn't covered by free speech.

That said, when you speak of disenfranchisement, you have to remember that generally, words alone don't disenfranchise people. When some bloviate on You Tube talks about people of color being less than or the Holocaust being a lie, such statements are atrocious, ugly and condemnable but these words have no direct affect on policy or the law. You can't disenfranchise or otherwise oppress people with words alone and the fringe movements you talk of have no direct or even indirect influence on social policy.

Even those organizations that do operate with intent to threaten, cajole, kill, etc. do so against the law. You seem to think that by restricting their ability to congregate, assemble and espouse their message that their tide can be stemmed but the reality is that such organizations will most assuredly break hate speech laws if their membership is comfortable committing violence.

It's the equivalent of thinking a serial killer will be deterred by the threat of a traffic ticket.

And to be clear I'm not entirely against the notion but such laws would have to be incredibly narrow and carefully delineated.

Censoring Alex Jones or making it illegal for people to give an opinion publically isn't the proper course. There's a reason why the ACLU has actually defended KKK members and protected their right to stage public rallies.

I mean yeah, the death penalty hasnt ever deterred anyone, so the idea of deterrents being effective are kind of bunk.

Eidan said:
It's amazing how they've gotten some on the far left to earnestly defend their right to advocate for the forced removal of minorities. You have people in this thread who actually believe that fiercely and vocally condemning Nazis is just as bad as being a Nazi. It's pathetic.

Because the ideology of suppression stems from fear which is always a conservative choice

Support for free speech is rising, and is higher among liberals and college graduates.

user requested ban

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Corrupted by Vengeance

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested ban

user requested ban

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

I’m seeing double here!

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

The Eggplant Queen

user requested account closure

Self-requested ban

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested ban

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

AVALANCHE