Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 80 of 80

Thread: Hate speech laws

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,338

    Default

    I think the fact that people soak in a lot of knowledge (true and fake), young people don't know what to believe in half the time, and everyone is very completely fallible, that speech laws are so very important.

    I don't want my children growing up hearing people spout hate because their bible told them so. I am gay, I'll be with another man, and my child won't need to hear about how their parents are wrong. I think it's so wrong to tell someone else what to do with their life if they're not hurting someone, and that's a huge point that religion thumpers usually cannot get a grasp on. Like I don't think it's possible in their brains to get a grasp that no one wants to hear them spout hate, no one wants to feel hated, no one wants to be converted, and religion can be wrong sometimes. Christians don't like being told their religion is wrong, so they should stop telling others how they feel about lifestyles they dont live and have NO business even commenting on.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    9,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snorlax512 View Post
    When have people committed genocide because Nazi's have said it's ok?
    so how do you explain the holocaust?

    because that's literally what actually transpired.

    people seem to think that ideas don't harm people but ideas lead to action. there's always an idea before an action. words have power. language is essentially the way a culture thinks and communicates what to value and not value.

    i'm not directly advocating for hate speech laws but I do want these 'first amendment' lovers to understand that simply looking at history, words clearly haven't just been ****ing words. they socialize us. that includes slurs. ask any linguist about how language is essentially one of the most important aspects of controlling culture.
    Last edited by GhostAnime; Today at 4:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
    Quick, someone get the scientific community onto this one! A truly brilliant hypothesis that would have been insofar overlooked by every researcher who has contributed to this field of science. And it's only 8th grade stuff!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Zero
    I roam Johto with my partner Pokemon, Rattata, who knows Hyper Fang, Sunny Day, Rock Smash and Cut. Anyone who runs with more than one Pokemon or evolves their Pokemon takes the game way too seriously.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobjr View Post
    90%+ of actual rapists don't serve a sentence, and those that do often get out soon after like Brock Turner.
    And that's completely messed up and a completely different topic.
    So how would a hate crime be worse off in a legal court.
    Never said it would be worse. Just that most hate speech laws are based around words and without proof and a proper court system how do you disprove an accusation of saying something?
    Without any real proof a judge would throw it out in terms of hate speech.
    Define "real proof"? There should be proof before a crime even gets to a judge. Otherwise, what's to stop people from filing charges simply to force a person to pay court costs or to get them arrested over and over again?

    But going "Hey everyone deserves free speech" got literal Nazi's in huge papers like the New York Times talking about how Genocide is a-okay as long as it's certain groups of people
    And how many people used their free speech to point out how that person was wrong? And there are kooks on all sides. Is it still a hate crime if an extreme feminist wants to go to artificial insemination and calls for the execution of all men?

    ,
    so it makes me wonder how much of this is about free speech and how much is literal human rights
    I don't agree that a human right includes the right not to hear offensive ideas or that a person should always feel safe. The first is an opinion that can very from group to group and the second can mean anything from not being scared by the big, scary (insert ethnic group/gender) or demanding that the government build me a super strong house to protect me from tornadoes. "Human Rights" is a variable list that a lot of people define and rank differently.

    and lives being threatened, because giving people like that a voice leads to the "When they go low, we go high" mentality that gets them to do horrible things while we go "Oh well they have a right to this, and while I'm not personally affected I'm sure the people in the line of fire can handle it."
    Interesting phrasing. Everyone already has a voice and everyone can use their voice in how they choose. You are talking about removing their voice if what they say doesn't toe the approved line. I am sure you can think of a few countries where people disappear for not toeing the approved party line.

    Also, can you point to a few recent examples of people voicing their opinion and others doing horrible things as a result while others stand by and tut. Say last few years. And since the topic is about the US not having hate speech laws, how about events in the US? Feel free to link to other countries if you can't find US based events.

    There should always be laws against assaulting people, but there should also be exceptions when that person is so vile in their opinions that letting them say it without consequence would only make things worse.
    So you want to bring back duels?

    Because what's worse, a Nazi who's scared to leave his house and whines about people hating him for being a Nazi, or someone who's allowed to preach about how people shouldn't be allowed to exist, and any time something bad happens to him we have to hear "Well he's entitled to his opinion, so lets hear him out"
    You don't have to hear him out. You can choose to walk away, change the channel, tune him out, etc. Free speech does not mean an enforced audience. What is worse? The ability to engage in an open discussion with other people who have the chance to refute their opinions and possibly help someone come to a better choice or the fear that saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can lead to being arrested without proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by snorlax512 View Post
    When have people committed genocide because Nazi's have said it's ok? I'm pretty sure people don't see Nazi's preaching and think 'oh it's okay to kill Jews now'. Their knowledge of the law hasn't changed regardless of their pre-existing view.

    I like that America is founded on the right to express one's opinions, whether other people like it or not. If people don't like your opinions they can ignore you or argue with you, but I don't like the idea of suppressing what people can think.

    And again, where do you draw the line between hate speech and insults? People in Britain get arrested for preaching that homosexuality is immoral.
    Plus how do you decide what qualifies as hate speech and when? White vs black, black vs white, gay vs straight? If it's based on minority/majority status, does that change if you live in an area where you aren't a majority person despite the rest of the country being overall a majority of your group?

    And would hate speech cover written words? Does that mean a mass censorship? Burning books?

    Quote Originally Posted by lemoncatpower View Post
    I think the fact that people soak in a lot of knowledge (true and fake), young people don't know what to believe in half the time, and everyone is very completely fallible, that speech laws are so very important.
    Nope. Education people to think on their own and learn is important.
    I don't want my children growing up hearing people spout hate because their bible told them so. I am gay, I'll be with another man, and my child won't need to hear about how their parents are wrong.
    Short of never letting your kids outside or have human contact, you will never prevent your kids from hearing about how their parents are wrong. People have opinions on everything. Its better to teach your kids to understand how people can be wrong in their opinions.

    I think it's so wrong to tell someone else what to do with their life if they're not hurting someone, and that's a huge point that religion thumpers usually cannot get a grasp on.
    That's not exclusive to religious people. Look at exercise and diet people.

    Like I don't think it's possible in their brains to get a grasp that no one wants to hear them spout hate, no one wants to feel hated, no one wants to be converted, and religion can be wrong sometimes. Christians don't like being told their religion is wrong, so they should stop telling others how they feel about lifestyles they dont live and have NO business even commenting on.
    No one likes being told they are wrong and everyone has an opinion. Can't stop people from sharing them.
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostAnime View Post
    so how do you explain the holocaust?

    because that's literally what actually transpired.
    The holocaust was a bit more complicated that just words. Different topic though.

    people seem to think that ideas don't harm people but ideas lead to action. there's always an idea before an action. words have power. language is essentially the way a culture thinks and communicates what to value and not value.

    i'm not directly advocating for hate speech laws but I do want these 'first amendment' lovers to understand that simply looking at history, words clearly haven't just been ****ing words. they socialize us. that includes slurs. ask any linguist about how language is essentially one of the most important aspects of controlling culture.
    Ideas work both ways. You literally can't ban or restrict ideas. People will share them anyway they can. It is better to keep the free exchange of ideas open and shareable so that you can combat the bad ideas with the good ones. "Genetic superiority? Bah. Here's where those people are wrong. Studies have shown....."

    If you ban certain words or ideas from public discourse, you only serve to keep people who honestly want to learn in the dark. "You see Billy? They arrested John for simply saying something they didn't like. If he was wrong, why didn't they simply tell him so? Look at that law! If I say ******* I go to jail. If he says it or a similar word directed at me, he doesn't. How is that fair?"
    Last edited by LDSman; Today at 6:32 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.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    And that's completely messed up and a completely different topic.
    Never said it would be worse. Just that most hate speech laws are based around words and without proof and a proper court system how do you disprove an accusation of saying something?
    Define "real proof"? There should be proof before a crime even gets to a judge. Otherwise, what's to stop people from filing charges simply to force a person to pay court costs or to get them arrested over and over again?


    And how many people used their free speech to point out how that person was wrong? And there are kooks on all sides. Is it still a hate crime if an extreme feminist wants to go to artificial insemination and calls for the execution of all men?

    , I don't agree that a human right includes the right not to hear offensive ideas or that a person should always feel safe. The first is an opinion that can very from group to group and the second can mean anything from not being scared by the big, scary (insert ethnic group/gender) or demanding that the government build me a super strong house to protect me from tornadoes. "Human Rights" is a variable list that a lot of people define and rank differently.

    Interesting phrasing. Everyone already has a voice and everyone can use their voice in how they choose. You are talking about removing their voice if what they say doesn't toe the approved line. I am sure you can think of a few countries where people disappear for not toeing the approved party line.

    Also, can you point to a few examples of people voicing their opinion and others doing horrible things as a result while others stand by an tut.

    So you want to bring back duels?

    You don't have to hear him out. You can choose to walk away, change the channel, tune him out, etc. Free speech does not mean an enforced audience. What worse? The ability to engage in an open discussion with people with the chance to refute their opinions and possibly help someone come to a better choice or the fear that saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can lead to being arrested without proof?



    Plus how do you decide what qualifies as hate speech and when? White vs black, black vs white, gay vs straight? If it's based on minority/majority status, does that change if you live in an area where you aren't a majority person despite the rest of the country being overall a majority of your group?

    Nope. Education people to think on their own and learn is important.
    Short of never letting your kids outside or have human contact, you will never prevent your kids from hearing about how their parents are wrong. People have opinions on everything. Its better to teach your kids to understand how people can be wrong in their opinions.

    That's not exclusive to religious people. Look at exercise and diet people.


    No one likes being told they are wrong and everyone has an opinion. Can't stop people from sharing them.

    The holocaust was a bit more complicated that just words. Different topic though.

    Ideas work both ways. You literally can't ban or restrict ideas. People will share them anyway they can. It is better to keep the free exchange of ideas open and shareable so that you can combat the bad ideas with the good ones. "Genetic superiority? Bah. Here's where those people are wrong. Studies have shown....."

    If you ban certain words or ideas from public discourse, you only serve to keep people who honestly want to learn in the dark. "You see Billy? They arrested John for simply saying something they didn't like. If he was wrong, why didn't they simply tell him so? Look at that law! If I say ******* I go to jail. If he says it or a simpler word directed at me, he doesn't. How is that fair?"
    K man what is your point even?

    It's like you think hate speech laws would mean that if anyone EVER says anything hateful, it's against the law. Do you know what hate speech laws are usually used for? People in authoritative positions shouldn't use their roles to incite hate and bring people together to take rights away from another group of people.

    <<If you ban certain words or ideas from public discourse, you only serve to keep people who honestly want to learn in the dark. "You see Billy? They arrested John for simply saying something they didn't like. If he was wrong, why didn't they simply tell him so? Look at that law! If I say ******* I go to jail. If he says it or a simpler word directed at me, he doesn't. How is that fair?" >>>

    the fact you said this ensures that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I can teach my kids not to mind what another kid says or a random stranger, but if a teacher at their school, or a doctor, or anyone else with power over them were to say something like that, it is a huge problem. Obviously I'd teach them to understand that people are small-minded and that you either educate them or walk away, but not to incite hate back.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    7,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snorlax512 View Post
    When have people committed genocide because Nazi's have said it's ok? I'm pretty sure people don't see Nazi's preaching and think 'oh it's okay to kill Jews now'. Their knowledge of the law hasn't changed regardless of their pre-existing view.
    Just because you don't doesn't mean others do. Hate crimes are on the rise, along with white supremacy, which Nazi leaders are even using more because people listen to it better.

    I like that America is founded on the right to express one's opinions, whether other people like it or not. If people don't like your opinions they can ignore you or argue with you, but I don't like the idea of suppressing what people can think.
    It was also founded on women having no power and black people weren't even worth a full person, so those people didn't have a voice, and even today they have less of a voice than an average white man. It's a token phrase.

    And again, where do you draw the line between hate speech and insults? People in Britain get arrested for preaching that homosexuality is immoral.
    If that person was provably doing that I don't see why it's wrong he got arrested.

    Quote Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    And that's completely messed up and a completely different topic.
    My point is that if rape is easier to prove then why do most get off without consequence? Hate speech crimes, if harder to prove with evidence, would have even lower rates.

    Never said it would be worse. Just that most hate speech laws are based around words and without proof and a proper court system how do you disprove an accusation of saying something?
    By claiming lack of evidence? You kinda need that in court to prove something. The absence of proof is not proof.
    Define "real proof"? There should be proof before a crime even gets to a judge. Otherwise, what's to stop people from filing charges simply to force a person to pay court costs or to get them arrested over and over again?
    People sue each other over dumb stuff all the time that's immediately thrown out. Like that already happens now.
    And how many people used their free speech to point out how that person was wrong? And there are kooks on all sides. Is it still a hate crime if an extreme feminist wants to go to artificial insemination and calls for the execution of all men?
    If she's talking about genocide of something that can't be changed yes.

    Interesting phrasing. Everyone already has a voice and everyone can use their voice in how they choose. You are talking about removing their voice if what they say doesn't toe the approved line. I am sure you can think of a few countries where people disappear for not toeing the approved party line.
    Yeah, the countries that have laws that stop the people from doing anything to the people in power. That's not hate speech that's Fascism.
    Also, can you point to a few recent examples of people voicing their opinion and others doing horrible things as a result while others stand by and tut. Say last few years. And since the topic is about the US not having hate speech laws, how about events in the US? Feel free to link to other countries if you can't find US based events.
    Well Milo Yannopolis is a big thing now, and one of his supporters just shot someone this weekend. Really any US Alt-Right big name person.

    So you want to bring back duels?
    That's kind of a big leap there. I'm just saying vigilante justice shouldn't be rewarded, but kept in check.

    You don't have to hear him out. You can choose to walk away, change the channel, tune him out, etc. Free speech does not mean an enforced audience. What is worse? The ability to engage in an open discussion with other people who have the chance to refute their opinions and possibly help someone come to a better choice or the fear that saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can lead to being arrested without proof?
    And while most walk away there will be a few who listen and get their minds warped, and eventually one of them will do something horrible to someone. Like honestly it's the same with MRA types and women. They convince the people who have issues with themselves and warp it to blame the other people, it's not you, you deserve this. It's persuasion 101. That's why they're usually charismatic speakers who never outright say it, they ease people into it.

    Plus how do you decide what qualifies as hate speech and when? White vs black, black vs white, gay vs straight? If it's based on minority/majority status, does that change if you live in an area where you aren't a majority person despite the rest of the country being overall a majority of your group?
    Like I've said several times in the thread, it should only be based on things someone is born with and can't change. Thankfully both race and sexual orientation fit that category!
    Last edited by bobjr; Today at 7:14 PM.

    Just Dance

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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