On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Trolldor]

Also, Cunt, about the '4chan' comment...

Having people identify themselves simply to share an opinion? Hardly perfect.

People will say waht they believe precisely when they can't be indentified.

[JimC]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

I do agree that speech is part of behaviour. I also think that the debate as to whether it is or isn't has zero relevance on the topic of hate-speech laws. Behaviour, or not, speech has an effect on people. The issue is: Should some of it be declared illegal? I have recently changed my mind about this. The main reason for opposing hate-speech legislation is that someone has to decide what we cannot say, and while such decisions are usually made in the best of faith, the decision-making is both haphazard and open to abuse.

As MM said, it's all in the framing of the legislation. I know it has to be interpreted, but if it were framed so that only hate-speech that clearly aims at promoting violence is actionable, we may be able to avoid serious infringements of freedom of speech.

Cool, but then why call it "hate-speech" legislation? Wouldn't it be better to frame and label such laws as something like "incitement to commit violence" legislation? That way we can say that we really hate theists, communists, libertarians et cetera for the opinions they hold, provided we don't call for their extermination.

I agree, although in practice the incitement to violence would involve the usual suspects of Jew-hating, nigger-hating etc.

[Hermit]

But legislation already exists to protect people from acts of violence - provided it can be established that they intended to carry out acts of violence.

True. I left that out for the sake of brevity. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

[Robert_S]

Also, Cunt, about the '4chan' comment...

Having people identify themselves simply to share an opinion? Hardly perfect.

People will say waht they believe precisely when they can't be indentified.

I suspect that people say what they think will create more entertainment, dramas in particular, on 4chan.

[Trolldor]

Robert - Good with the bad.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

Behavior means "manner of acting."

An "act" is a "thing done - a deed."

Words are not things you do. Words are not deeds.

It's the difference between "conduct" and "words." They aren't the same thing.

It's not pedantry. It's definition. Words mean things.

[Trolldor]

How you say the words can be action - hand gestures, emphasis. Verbally reciting words is an action, but words are neither behaviour nor action. I can write the words, that's an action, but the letter I write is not an action.

None of it is behaviour, but it can be altered or tempered by my behaviour.

[Cunt]

Also, Cunt, about the '4chan' comment...

Having people identify themselves simply to share an opinion? Hardly perfect.

People will say waht they believe precisely when they can't be indentified.

...and I think using right names would evoke more 'play nice'...

[Trolldor]

It would also stifle the opinions of those who would be in positions where letting their opinion be known could be very detrimental.

[Pensioner]

I’m not convinced by the arguments so far when it comes to giving racist Nazis freedoms of speech, I would rather give them the fist and the boot just like my fathers generation did.

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZmxMlST ... wE1AKMRDfw[/youtube]

[FBM]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

Behavior means "manner of acting."

An "act" is a "thing done - a deed."

Words are not things you do. Words are not deeds.

It's the difference between "conduct" and "words." They aren't the same thing.

It's not pedantry. It's definition. Words mean things.

I think I see at least part of the problem. I'm talking about speaking as a behavior, you're talking about words themselves. We somehow got disconnected from each other's monologues. Anyway, I was just being a pedant. It didn't add anything to the discussion. I looked ahead at where I was going with that train of thought and saw that it turned into a dead end. Probably, anyway.

[charlou]

We've all been silenced anyway, and not even by the law.

I would love to draw big pictures of mohammed and post them here and there, just because some git tells me I can't. That I wouldn't class as incitement to hatred. Just incitement to free speech. But I don't see anyone doing it anywhere.
Maybe the internet should have a "draw mohammed" day, with millions of cartoons going up simultaneously. ( but don't say it was my idea ).
.

You're being ironic, right?




PS, Have you seen Pappa's tat? :twisted:

[Pappa]

PS, Have you seen Pappa's tat? :twisted:

Take that Mohammed!!!!!!

[Pensioner]

PS, Have you seen Pappa's tat? :twisted:

Take that Mohammed!!!!!!

I like that so much.