But that's what you're promoting. You don't have to outright say it to promote it.
Support for free speech is rising, and is higher among liberals and college graduates.
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
But that's what you're promoting. You don't have to outright say it to promote it.
I get what you're saying, and I'm certainly worried about such laws getting defined too broadly, but I imagine you can place conditions and requirements. For example, calling someone stupid just because you hate them shouldn't be enough, but what about hosting a podcast where you tell your followers that "Cagey's Law Practice is responsible for putting criminals on the street, and Cagey is responsible for X crime that happened recently and Cagey needs to be stopped or else X crime might happen to you"?
Ha! Congrats man, you are doing the lords work being a civil rights attorney. Im with you though. For some reason, i feel compelled more to explain Constitutional law more than any other area. (Im decidedly not a civil rights attorney, but I do enjoy Con. Law as a hobby). I think its because its a area of law that is so fundamental to our democracy (and Western Culture), and it is so misunderstood by everyone that isn't top of the class con law students and lawyers. I guess it takes sitting there in class and have all those preconceived notions of beat out of you...in public.
That sure feels like an Equal Protection argument to me.
I'm not promoting that either. I'm saying social consequences are sufficient. If you have a problem with someone's speech you absolutely should speak out against it. No private platform is required to host forms of speech they dont agree with.
I think what you're tackle is propaganda and demagoguery that suggests people take action, not hateful speech.
And it's tough because this would require distinguishing between what's legal and illegal. What's the line I cross where my podcast goes from a blowhard blowing hard about people doing things to a blowhard doing that illegally.
And this without diving into the subjectivity that can lead people to want to weaponize this against others they dislike.
Frankly, i can say Charlottesville is an example of something that I believe was criminal rather than constitutionally protected. The intent as revealed online from many participants was very clearly to engage in violence, evidenced by calls to show up armed and ready to fight. But Alex Jones? For criminal purposes, his defense is he's just talking and people have free will. Criminally speaking, I'd agree. I don't think the government should step in and deem his words criminal. At some point, the guy who shows up with a rifle has to have ownership of his actions.
Civilly, sue the hell out of him.
I'm uncomfortable with anyone who uses their platform to incite hate, and indirectly, violence. Under current laws, I'm sure your right. That's why I believe new laws are needed. Everyone with a lick of sense can see how people like Alex Jones skirt around existing laws by being just on the cusp of explicitly invoking violence but not quite in a *wink wink* manner. That's how manipulators operate, and when they take advantage of a group of people to incite hate towards a target, they themselves are weaponizing people. At the end of the day, current laws aren't working when these people are radicalizing others for their purposes and can't be stopped.
You've heard the expression "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well this shit is broke.
I'm going to call 999 (or wait I better use 911) to report you lot for incitement to violence, and organising an illegal gambling ring.
It's not gambling if they give both of us $200 instead of betting on one of us to win!
I agree in that I dislike he gets away with what he does.
I just don't personally believe that a law criminalizing his actions is the answer. The legal theory that would hold Alex Jones accountable (inciting violence) is more of a grenade than a sniper bullet. There will be collateral and that concerns me more than this fucker
As long as you get what you want and don't have to try again.
Nothing! Haha. You had just brought up some points that I would have replied to but I was working and I think other people replied to you. :) In any case, the conversation moved on while I was working haha.
It is a matter of perspective.
Trump is one of the most politically correct politicians there is. Every day he is saying the correct thing politically to appeal to his right wing fundamentalist base.
If you say you are not religious, there are many places in the US where you will not be elected.
From what I can see lack of freedom of speech is a right wing issue where everyone has to say and think exactly the same thing.
That's more of a uniquely American issue with Government. In the UK no one really gives a shit if a politician is religious, in America even being Muslim appears to have a better chance of being President than an atheist (cue the right wing conspiracies about Barry being a secret Muslim)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/
There are clearly "secret" non-believers or agnostics in the ranks of Government in a country the size of America. It's not that you don't have the freedom in America to say you are a non-believer in religion, unlike some countries where atheists get hunted down, it's just that it's political suicide. Much like talking about sex/nudity in America is still fairly taboo, saying you don't believe in a religious power is too, at least in regards to politics. The country is still heavily gripped by it's puritanical religious roots, and for all it claims separation of Church and state (and there is truth in that), religion is still heavily mixed up with politics in America.
Unsurprisingly the majority of declared atheists are Democrats
Young Republicans might identify as non-believers, as a larger percentage of the internet/digital age (free and widespread educational tools/youtube videos/websites about doubting supernatural claims) youth are the ones who are likely to say they don't believe in a God, versus older generations. Older Republicans and to an extent older Democrats are probably where most of the die-hard God believers reside. I'm pretty sure the Bible-belt in America is almost exclusively religious/Christian, which is why you could run a literal dog for a leader of the Republican party, and the devout Christians will still go and vote Republican. Partly why someone like Donald Trump can win, it doesn't matter who is running, devout Christians vote Republican without fail.
But even in the Democrat party, good luck seeing any prominent figures talk about not having a faith of any kind or being agnostic.
Again, it's not really a matter of freedom of speech, but it shows how your freedom to say you don't believe in something in the sky, can have the consequence of essentially ruining your political chances of being elected, or widely listened to. To the point where unlike other countries where politicans might simply say nothing about God at all (like most in the UK), in America at times you seem to have to actually pretend you believe in a God and say something outwardly as a politican like "God bless America" consistently. Politicians are constantly being watched to see if... they might be one of those Godless atheists or unsure agnostics!
But no, freedom of speech is not a right wing issue, it's a bipartisan issue. What has become right wing is it becoming co-opted and people on the left, or people who do not declare themselves right wing, becoming increasingly fearful of having any reasonable/adult conversation/debate about it (besides the rhetoric induced 140-character twitter sarcasm about freeze peach) in case they get called right wing, far right or "secret nazis/bigots".
edit: More here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...db129976abb_story.html?utm_term=.41df414a6989
Tim Farron pretty much had to step down as leader of the Lib Dems in the UK due to his religious rants about Christians struggling to cope with gay marriage, as being gay is a sin (or gay sex is a sin). In America in some places that would be celebrated coming from a politician. You'd probably win an election running on that.
But even the actual religious in the UK are secularising, at least the Christian/Catholic roots which this country has
http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/
The Islamic population is a bit further behind as of now
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...se-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
edit2: Speaking of both free speech and Trump winning, this video is still pretty funny, but yes, it's a comedian and amped up for effect
But maybe a small nugget in there for most of us, that whatever future we want to try and strive for, it probably isn't going to come about from simply trying to arrest/charge everyone out there who isn't "us". There needs to be a debate about as and when you put your hand up like a child in a classroom and go "Teacher Teacher, this person said something mean/insulting/that I didn't like, please do something for me instead of me trying to do anything!". Replace "teacher" with "Government/police".
And before anyone gets annoyed at me posting that video, no, it isn't possible to talk to everyone, or even try and debate with everyone, but if you decide in your head almost everyone who thinks slightly differently than you is simply an enemy by default, you're going to have a hard time in life. Hence why people genuinely not seeing debating and discussing free speech/expression as a bipartisan issue, but simply right-wing, is really really short-sighted. You're not going to encourage me to go and vote for the Tories if you think that way, but you are going to frustrate me intellectually if I discuss free speech and you do any of the "teacher teacher!" nonsense or the "hmmm are you sure you are not far right? are you sure you don't have a World War 2 nazi uniform in your closet?".
Some people do need to do a bit better with engagement and debate instead of just going to the twitter retweeting/facebook resharing "activisim" the comedian above mocks.
Last edited:
Well good deal. Im sure there will be another one of these topics and we can all have the same debate again!
