Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 68 of 68

Thread: Hate speech laws

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baba Yaga View Post
    This is the debate equivalent of "I know you are but what am I." Good job.

    Scholar Pokemonmaster11 speaketh.
    No, it was my response to your claim. This is a debate and I simply said that your sources are wrong. Might I suggest the Jack Hayford Bible Handbook. Good reading, it has truly helped me understand the Bible so much more.

    I still have yet to see an answer about the constitutional aspects of hate speech laws and any detailed rebuttals to my point about people using the laws for political gain to prosecute foes. Giving large amounts of power to government can come back to harm you. What prevents an Inquisition style witch hunt from happening, other than people's word that it will never happen? We already see a form of it with the fake news stuff.
    Last edited by ThePokemonmaster11; 15th January 2017 at 3:30 AM.
    Pokeshipping Forever!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lost as **** tbh
    Posts
    327

    Default

    "Your wrong, go look it up" isn't a response, dude. It's pretentious dickery.

    Slippery slope arguments are usually bullshit unless you can demonstrate historical precedent. You are the one claiming that hate speech laws will allow politicians to jail their opponents, it's not my responsibility to argue why that won't happen but yours to argue why it will. Can you provide even one example of how someone has used hate speech laws for the kind of malevolent intent you're talking about?
    Last edited by Baba Yaga; 15th January 2017 at 3:39 AM.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baba Yaga View Post
    "Your wrong, go look it up" isn't a response, dude.

    Slippery slope arguments are usually ******** unless you can demonstrate historical precedent. You are the one claiming that hate speech laws will allow politicians to jail their opponents, it's not my responsibility to argue why that won't happen but yours to argue why it will.
    I don't see why we should have hate speech laws unless it is for speech that incites violence. Let the radical Christians have their protests over ludicrous stuff as long as they aren't trying to incite violence.

    Historically though (from what I've understood), when speech from one side is censored, it leads to that side growing like a cancerous tumor. A good bit of my family was still in Italy during the days of Fascism, where the Partisan movement flourished under heavy state censorship, and while anecdotal evidence is necessarily the greatest thing in the world, it could shed in some light. It could easily go the other way, but instead of the Partisans and Marxists, it's the Christian/Islamic extremists, Fascists, and the National Socialists/Strasserists that could potentially grow. While they're speech is often a cancer in its own right, their speech should be defended just like the Marxists and Anarchists if they do not incite violence and ridiculed for the morons they are by normal people.
    Last edited by Thepowaofhax; 15th January 2017 at 3:47 AM.
    Yellow Team:
    Rambo Lvl. 56 Leviathan Lvl. 52 Dr. Eggman Lvl. 52 Wafer Lvl. 51 MontyMoles Lvl. 51 Arwing Lvl. 50

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    7,360

    Default

    Besides, there are dozens of versions of the bible, there's no one true take. Are we talking the King James version, the New Revised Standard edition, the International Standard Edition? Are we comparing other historical sources that too place around the same time? Taking one bible and saying that is the one way is historically dishonest.

    But when you put the law at only things that aren't a choice to have and people can't just change/choose differently. Like inherent biological factors. If they want to believe being LGBT is a choice that's fine but they're still wrong about it.

    Also, wouldn't a dictator coming in and changing the law to fit his rule happen regardless? Like no matter the precedent they can make the law whatever they want if that's the case, having the proper law now won't change anything.

    Just Dance

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wherever the adventure lies
    Posts
    11,084

    Default

    I don't think freedom of speech should be absolute, no freedom should, and that's something I think a lot of people in this country need to understand. If someone uses their freedom to harm someone else then you're infringing on their freedom, and you're not facilitating an environment where people can express themselves. With that in mind, absolutely, hate speech should be criminalized. Hate speech is basically verbal persecution, and persecution is something that this country was specifically founded to get away from. So allowing this kind of behavior is downright un-American.
    Quote Originally Posted by LizardonX View Post
    Tabitha has really let himself go, just how many lava cookies did he eat in the last 11 years?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lost as **** tbh
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Besides, there are dozens of versions of the bible, there's no one true take. Are we talking the King James version, the New Revised Standard edition, the International Standard Edition? Are we comparing other historical sources that too place around the same time? Taking one bible and saying that is the one way is historically dishonest.
    Different versions just make the work of interpretation more tedious. Pretending that every single passage in the bible or any religious text is vacuous and a freaking free for all is equally dishonest. There are wrong interpretations. In this case Pokemonmaster11 was clearly inserting something implied nowhere within the passage to avoid confronting its uncomfortable conclusions. If there's an equally valid alternate interpretation like he mentions, he should provide the version he's talking about or some other kind of evidence that supports him, or quiet down.

    Historically though (from what I've understood), when speech from one side is censored, it leads to that side growing like a cancerous tumor. A good bit of my family was still in Italy during the days of Fascism, where the Partisan movement flourished under heavy state censorship, and while anecdotal evidence is necessarily the greatest thing in the world, it could shed in some light. It could easily go the other way, but instead of the Partisans and Marxists, it's the Christian/Islamic extremists, Fascists, and the National Socialists/Strasserists that could potentially grow. While they're speech is often a cancer in its own right, their speech should be defended just like the Marxists and Anarchists if they do not incite violence and ridiculed for the morons they are by normal people.
    I don't really know much of the history that you're referring unfortunately, but in order for this to carry weight I think that you would need to show me which existing laws the Italian government used to censor their opposition and they would have to be more or less equivalent to modern hate speech laws. If there are any modern or historical examples of how hate speech laws or laws similar to them have been used under false pretenses to seize power, I will retract my argument. Otherwise, it just looks like an invisible boogey man to me.
    Last edited by Baba Yaga; 15th January 2017 at 8:48 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baba Yaga View Post
    I don't really know much of the history that you're referring unfortunately, but in order for this to carry weight I think that you would need to show me which existing laws the Italian government used to censor their opposition and they would have to be more or less equivalent to modern hate speech laws. If there are any modern or historical examples of how hate speech laws or laws similar to them have been used under false pretenses to seize power, I will retract my argument. Otherwise, it just looks like an invisible boogey man to me.
    Under the current Italian government, there is no such laws in which the opposition is quashed, however, during the time during the reign of Benito Mussolini, censorship was used to instate a police state in Italy in which those who oppose the regime were punished unjustly.

    To give you an idea, people who did not confirm to Fascist ideology were quashed by the secret police (OVRA), all other political parties and any labor unions were banned in Italy, literature that did not conform to the Fascist ideology were denied publishing, etc. This is no "boogey man"; Fascists used anything in their power to repress non-Fascists in Italy, and by repressing those people and supporting Nazi Germany, a large Partisan movement grew. The same went with the Marxist government of the USSR and other ruthless regimes in the past. We do not need to cause the growth of the same cancerous movements that would attack the minority groups these laws would protect.

    And by the way, with the current way a lot of people think, it would easily not be persecuted equally. While this is two different countries, it is ludicrous to think someone should get 12 months for leaving a bacon sandwich at a mosque while someone gets away scott-free (for hate crime, not arson) for BURNING DOWN A SYNAGOGUE AS CRITICISM TO ISRAEL.
    Last edited by Thepowaofhax; 15th January 2017 at 4:39 PM.
    Yellow Team:
    Rambo Lvl. 56 Leviathan Lvl. 52 Dr. Eggman Lvl. 52 Wafer Lvl. 51 MontyMoles Lvl. 51 Arwing Lvl. 50

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thepowaofhax View Post
    Under the current Italian government, there is no such laws in which the opposition is quashed, however, during the time during the reign of Benito Mussolini, censorship was used to instate a police state in Italy in which those who oppose the regime were punished unjustly.

    To give you an idea, people who did no confirm to Fascist ideology were quashed by the secret police (OVRA), all other political parties and any labor unions were banned in Italy, literature that did not conform to the Fascist ideology were denied publishing, etc. This is no "boogey man"; Fascists used anything in their power to repress non-Fascists in Italy, and by using repressing those people and supporting Nazi Germany, a large Partisan movement grew. The same went with the Marxist government of the USSR and other ruthless regimes in the past. We do not need to cause the growth of the same cancerous movements that would attack the minority groups these laws would protect.

    And by the way, with the current way a lot of people think, it would easily not be persecuted equally. While this is two different countries, it is ludicrous to think someone should get 12 months for leaving a bacon sandwich at a mosque while someone gets away scott-free (for hate crime, not arson) for BURNING DOWN A SYNAGOGUE AS CRITICISM TO ISRAEL.
    My point exactly. Many of our courts are just insane and continues to prove my point about hate crime/hate speech laws. Someone like me preaching and mentioning homosexuality as wrong is not the same as Westboro picketing funerals and shouldn't be treated as such, anymore than someone leaving a bacon sandwich shouldn't be treated like someone committing freaking arson in an actual hate crime. Also it only takes one dictator that rises to power outlaw speech.
    Pokeshipping Forever!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    where u arent
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Last time I checked, laws against hate speech are no where near what Mussolini did. This is a slippery slope.

    Pokemon Showdown: chess-z
    Friend Code: 3883-9258-9472
    tumblr

    if u ever take issue with anything that i say let me know
    polite disagreement leads to enlightenment

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chess-z View Post
    Last time I checked, laws against hate speech are no where near what Mussolini did. This is a slippery slope.
    One could assume if we have hate speech laws, literature containing hate speech and political parties that spout hate speech would be banned as well, since that contains hate speech. The only thing that wouldn't be as extreme is how it would be dealt with on a person by person basis, but we're still looking at people going to jail for saying something hateful. You cannot repress a group and expect it not to grow.

    Surprisingly enough, if you read what I'm saying, I'm not saying we're going to have a Politically Correct Mussolini goose-stepping on top of everyone who says something hateful. I'm saying that historically, when the speech of a group is repressed, that group will grow albeit slowly depending on the conditions. It happens this why because those people would easily be able to garner sympathy because big bad government decided to give someone in their group 12 months hate speech.

    Plus, it would waste money on police resources because they need to deal with a bunch of people crying wolf on Twitter in regards to hate speech. Yay.
    Last edited by Thepowaofhax; 15th January 2017 at 5:40 PM.
    Yellow Team:
    Rambo Lvl. 56 Leviathan Lvl. 52 Dr. Eggman Lvl. 52 Wafer Lvl. 51 MontyMoles Lvl. 51 Arwing Lvl. 50

  11. #61

    Default

    Hate speech serves no positive purpose (No, I'm not going to accept any of the "but it lets us find out who's a douchebag!" acrobatics. Get bent.) and, overall, is extraordinarily negative in its purpose, most of the time? What reason is there for it to not be prosecuted? I mean, aside from in cases like the US where it still falls under freedom of speech and thus Congress shall, technically, make no law abridging it, much like the issue that came up with the assault weapons ban.

    Quote Originally Posted by bobjr View Post
    You do realize this isn't an American board right? It's not a sole American thing that's only able to be discussed in America.
    This is why I tend to avoid the Debates Forum aside from US-politics-exclusive threads: filthy yanks trying to pretend their perspective is the only one. (Note: I am a filthy yank.)

    PM me if you want my Discord.
    It's way easier than getting in touch with me on here.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    7,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePokemonmaster11 View Post
    My point exactly. Many of our courts are just insane and continues to prove my point about hate crime/hate speech laws. Someone like me preaching and mentioning homosexuality as wrong is not the same as Westboro picketing funerals and shouldn't be treated as such, anymore than someone leaving a bacon sandwich shouldn't be treated like someone committing freaking arson in an actual hate crime. Also it only takes one dictator that rises to power outlaw speech.
    Because saying being LGBT is wrong is provably wrong. I don't see how you aren't taking that part in, unless you also think women should be subservient to men as well.

    And for the people saying a dictator can come in and change the laws this is literally what Trump is trying to do, in a country where there are no Hate Speech laws to warp. Nothing is just stopping him from making his own, so why not protect those who need to be protected? Why make racists feel better when you can help those afflicted by racism?

    Just Dance

  13. #63
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Potato
    Posts
    1,405

    Default

    The bible was once used as a weapon against people of color in the United States to keep them from getting equal rights under the law. History seems to be repeating itself with the LGBT community. I just wanted to point that out for the benefit of the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Admiral View Post
    Hate speech serves no positive purpose (No, I'm not going to accept any of the "but it lets us find out who's a douchebag!" acrobatics. Get bent.) and, overall, is extraordinarily negative in its purpose, most of the time? What reason is there for it to not be prosecuted?
    Well, actually, I was going to argue the same point in my original post, and to a very far extent I do agree with it. However, the positive purpose that hate speech serves is to strengthen the convictions of people opposed to it by making them defend their values. Such behavior can currently be seen on a larger scale with businesses and sports teams boycotting any state, such as North Carolina, that puts discriminatory anti-LGBT laws into effect, coercing people from engaging in it...eventually. In that effect, I would regard hate speech as an evil that destroys itself.

    Hate speech is rotten, as are the people who knowingly use it to harm others, but it does have a point in its existence.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobjr View Post
    And for the people saying a dictator can come in and change the laws this is literally what Trump is trying to do, in a country where there are no Hate Speech laws to warp. Nothing is just stopping him from making his own, so why not protect those who need to be protected? Why make racists feel better when you can help those afflicted by racism?
    I'm not necessarily saying a dictator will abuse this when they seize control of the government, I'm saying actual ethnonationalists and National Socialists/Strasserists will use their jail sentences to try and garner sympathy. This is especially true with Fascists targeting youth; it will only lead to the slow growth of these groups as well as feed to the current political divide in the West.
    Last edited by Thepowaofhax; 17th January 2017 at 1:41 AM.
    Yellow Team:
    Rambo Lvl. 56 Leviathan Lvl. 52 Dr. Eggman Lvl. 52 Wafer Lvl. 51 MontyMoles Lvl. 51 Arwing Lvl. 50

  15. #65

    Default

    Doesn't the first amendment let people express their opinions? Also, when do you draw the line?

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePokemonmaster11 View Post
    Recently, Ellen Degeneres got into a tiff with a Christian singer about the issue of homosexuality and suggested that hate speech laws be enacted. Which brings up this debate, do you believe that said laws should be enacted in the US and do you believe that they would be constitutional?
    . Hate speech laws would not be constitutional in the US and should not be enacted.

    Quote Originally Posted by chess-z View Post
    There will always be a tention between "Free Speach" and protecting minorities. You will have to decide which one you value more.

    We have established that there are somethings that you can't say (screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater for example). I personally believe that it is entirely fair to protect people using hate speach laws. Constitutional is another thing, but there is room to protect people within it.
    . Actually it is legal to yell fire inside a crowded theater. You can be held responsible if you cause a panic that gets people hurt or the theater can ask you to leave.

    And to clear up something preemptively, free speach means that the government can't censor you. With that definition, this is, just a tiny bit, censorship.
    the government never seems to stop with just a little bit of anything.

    Of course I would have to wonder what kind of person you are if you get called out on hate speach charges (what's legal isn't not always morally right).
    . I point out the logical fallacy of claiming an accusation is actual proof of anything. All you need to do is run afoul of the wrong type of person to get an accusation made. I'm reminded of a college student accused of being a nazi because he was reading a book that showed a nazi swatiska on the cover. He was reading a book documenting the rise and fall of the Reich for a class.

    Edit: I also find this interesting link that lists various pro hate speech laws arguments and then refutes them.

    http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discu...-against-them/
    Last edited by LDSman; Yesterday at 3:18 PM.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    7,360

    Default

    It's almost as if Hate Speech as nuances and isn't black and white just like every other human behavior. Turns out if the person was informing themselves and informing themselves then they aren't responsible, while those who want to influence hate are responsible.

    But hey, if those who want a civilization based on the thought that black Americans are worth only 3/5ths of a person and think women shouldn't be allowed a vote should be unconstitutional, then they deserve a punch in the face like every Nazi deserves.

    Just Dance

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    where u arent
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    .
    . I point out the logical fallacy of claiming an accusation is actual proof of anything. All you need to do is run afoul of the wrong type of person to get an accusation made. I'm reminded of a college student accused of being a nazi because he was reading a book that showed a nazi swatiska on the cover. He was reading a book documenting the rise and fall of the Reich for a class.

    Edit: I also find this interesting link that lists various pro hate speech laws arguments and then refutes them.

    http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discu...-against-them/
    Anecdotal evidence. If there's an overall trend that I'm bot aware, please inform me. Also, which logical fallacy?

    Pokemon Showdown: chess-z
    Friend Code: 3883-9258-9472
    tumblr

    if u ever take issue with anything that i say let me know
    polite disagreement leads to enlightenment

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •