The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 6:15 am

Forty Two wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:15 pm
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/25/16189064/ ... -interview
As Mark Bray stated
It’s also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. They’re not interested in and don’t feel constrained by conventional norms.
They other key point, which probably isn’t made enough, is that these are revolutionary leftists. They’re not concerned about the fact that fascism targets liberalism. These are self-described revolutionaries. They have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum.
I think that reasonable people can disagree about this. I can’t speak for the individuals who committed these political actions, but the general defense is that the rationale for shutting down someone like Milo has to do with the fact that his kind of commentary emboldens actual fascists. The Berkeley administrators issued a statement in advance that they feared he was going to out undocumented students on campus, and previously he had targeted a transgender student at the University of Milwaukee Wisconsin. Antifa regards this as an instigation to violence, and so they feel justified in shutting it down.

Again, though, this is much easier to understand when you remember that antifa isn’t concerned with free speech or other liberal democratic values.
He recently explained in The Post, “Its [ANTIFA's] adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists” who believe that physical violence “is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.”

Those adherents overwhelmingly consider free speech, private property and capitalism to be tools of the ruling class or the patriarchy and they want to smash all that, because that's part of fascism. That's who they are. That's why you get so many of that ilk running around calling everyone fascists.
This is just (more) lazy thinking. Being 'not concerned with free speech' =/= wanting to 'end free speech'. And what you quoted this Bray guy saying, is basically a version of Mill's "harm principle". Milo was stopped because he was (it was believed) about to inflict harm with his speech.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 6:38 am

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 am
.... even if they are guilty of what you think can be "legitimately" called hate speech (which is not in any respect objective or even subject to a reasonable consensus), why would shutting down speakers (not just right wing, right?) be justified?

What about the mean speech of the left wing groups? You seem to be o.k. with them as long as they don't get into "wanton destruction of property" -- I mean, why? What about when they start a lot of nasty talk and threats, as they are wont to do in their protests?
"Mean speech" isn't hate speech. You might not like the tone or content, but that doesn't make it hate speech. Hate speech is usually concerned with targetting people with hate for something outside of their control. So its both irrational and likely more harmful than just plain "mean speech".
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 6:41 am

JimC wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:24 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 am
.... even if they are guilty of what you think can be "legitimately" called hate speech (which is not in any respect objective or even subject to a reasonable consensus), why would shutting down speakers (not just right wing, right?) be justified?
Hate speech is illegal in many jurisdictions - it would be the job of the law enforcement agencies to deal with it...

And I don't know if you noticed, but I made it clear that I generally don't approve of shutting speakers down for political reasons, unless the speech is a clear and deliberate provocation; and I know that the borderline is hard to draw...
The thing is, for ideologues (like 42 with his Liberalism), the borderline is black and white. It's philoswibbly backed up with acres of navel gazing text by a bunch of people hundreds of years ago with no experience of the modern world, and very little concern for practicality.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 01, 2018 2:18 pm

JimC wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:24 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 am
.... even if they are guilty of what you think can be "legitimately" called hate speech (which is not in any respect objective or even subject to a reasonable consensus), why would shutting down speakers (not just right wing, right?) be justified?
Hate speech is illegal in many jurisdictions - it would be the job of the law enforcement agencies to deal with it...
Indeed, as Count Dankula found out. Jokes be illegal in hate speech land. As I said, there is no objective or even reasonably clear understanding of what hate speech is under the law. Sure, it's the job of law enforcement to deal with it, but that's stating the obvious as it is always the job of law enforcement to deal with crimes. However, if a society is smart, it will try not to limit the cops' discretion to arbitrarily enforce individual interpretations of the law.

JimC wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:24 am
And I don't know if you noticed, but I made it clear that I generally don't approve of shutting speakers down for political reasons, unless the speech is a clear and deliberate provocation; and I know that the borderline is hard to draw...
Impossible to draw. Because as we can see by many of the posts in this forum, when it comes to antifa, even actual violence is considered legitimate because of the peoples' views as to the merits of what they're supposedly fighting against. Those same differences of opinion are held by cops, too. So, if you have, say, a school administration that supports antifa and leftist groups, then they will have the cops stand down against such speakers/protesters. But, all it takes is a switch in the winds of power, and you'll have right wingers running the administration, and the reverse will happen.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 01, 2018 2:20 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:15 am


This is just (more) lazy thinking. Being 'not concerned with free speech' =/= wanting to 'end free speech'. And what you quoted this Bray guy saying, is basically a version of Mill's "harm principle". Milo was stopped because he was (it was believed) about to inflict harm with his speech.
And you accuse others of "lazy thinking?"

Milo was "it was believed" about to inflict harm with his speech.

:spray:
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 21022
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by laklak » Tue May 01, 2018 2:23 pm

Prior restraint.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 2:29 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:20 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:15 am


This is just (more) lazy thinking. Being 'not concerned with free speech' =/= wanting to 'end free speech'. And what you quoted this Bray guy saying, is basically a version of Mill's "harm principle". Milo was stopped because he was (it was believed) about to inflict harm with his speech.
And you accuse others of "lazy thinking?"

Milo was "it was believed" about to inflict harm with his speech.

:spray:
Read your own link ffs. :fp:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 01, 2018 2:35 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:38 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 am
.... even if they are guilty of what you think can be "legitimately" called hate speech (which is not in any respect objective or even subject to a reasonable consensus), why would shutting down speakers (not just right wing, right?) be justified?

What about the mean speech of the left wing groups? You seem to be o.k. with them as long as they don't get into "wanton destruction of property" -- I mean, why? What about when they start a lot of nasty talk and threats, as they are wont to do in their protests?
"Mean speech" isn't hate speech. You might not like the tone or content, but that doesn't make it hate speech. Hate speech is usually concerned with targetting people with hate for something outside of their control. So its both irrational and likely more harmful than just plain "mean speech".
The reality is that "targeting people with hate" is meaningless. Is it targeting people with hate to say "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas?"

And, it is not limited to "something outside of people's control", as hate speech laws usually include religion as a protected class.

Is it "targetting people with hate for something outside of their control" to imply that someone is fat, to call them "fatties" outright? What if the target is Donald Trump or Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The reality is that there is no real definition of hate speech, even in jurisdictions that have laws defining the term, the term is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and subject to arbitrary and capricious interpretation.

In Australia, your federal law makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group." This law was applied against a person who created a website which denied the holocaust. It was hate speech to simply deny a historical fact - no targeting of anyone for something outside their control.

You have a statute too that says under Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 that it is a criminal offense to use the Internet in a manner which reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive. Offensive.

Offensive.

If it became politically expedient, the State could criminally prosecute someone who said something on the internet that a reasonable person would regard as offensive.

In Victoria, Christian Pastors were subjected to a three year legal battle, where they were originally found guilty of violating the hate speech law there in Victoria by making "controversial" statements about Islam at a seminar. They appealed, and got it reversed, and later settled with the Moslem complainants, but that could easily go the other way. In Victoria, the law says, "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons." So, you can't say that those Christians are lunatics on the internet, without violating the letter of the law, and subjecting oneself to the possibility of prosecution.

How about Count Dankula's "Nazi Pug" - the guy was criminally prosecuted for a joke. https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeo ... b10b7765b3

And there's supposed to be some clearly understandable difference between "hate speech" and "mean speech?"
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 2:41 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:35 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:38 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 am
.... even if they are guilty of what you think can be "legitimately" called hate speech (which is not in any respect objective or even subject to a reasonable consensus), why would shutting down speakers (not just right wing, right?) be justified?

What about the mean speech of the left wing groups? You seem to be o.k. with them as long as they don't get into "wanton destruction of property" -- I mean, why? What about when they start a lot of nasty talk and threats, as they are wont to do in their protests?
"Mean speech" isn't hate speech. You might not like the tone or content, but that doesn't make it hate speech. Hate speech is usually concerned with targetting people with hate for something outside of their control. So its both irrational and likely more harmful than just plain "mean speech".
The reality is that "targeting people with hate" is meaningless. Is it targeting people with hate to say "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas?"
Morally, not in our countries, as religion is a choice. Legally it can be because religion has infected society and is unfortunately a protected species.
And, it is not limited to "something outside of people's control", as hate speech laws usually include religion as a protected class.
Religion is a special class. It's a protected species. It shouldn't be, but it is. That's why I said it is "usually concerned with". I'm not reading the rest, as you've got off to such a fucked start, I can't imagine it getting any better.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 01, 2018 3:02 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:41 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:35 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:38 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 am
.... even if they are guilty of what you think can be "legitimately" called hate speech (which is not in any respect objective or even subject to a reasonable consensus), why would shutting down speakers (not just right wing, right?) be justified?

What about the mean speech of the left wing groups? You seem to be o.k. with them as long as they don't get into "wanton destruction of property" -- I mean, why? What about when they start a lot of nasty talk and threats, as they are wont to do in their protests?
"Mean speech" isn't hate speech. You might not like the tone or content, but that doesn't make it hate speech. Hate speech is usually concerned with targetting people with hate for something outside of their control. So its both irrational and likely more harmful than just plain "mean speech".
The reality is that "targeting people with hate" is meaningless. Is it targeting people with hate to say "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas?"
Morally, not in our countries, as religion is a choice. Legally it can be because religion has infected society and is unfortunately a protected species.
Well, this idea of choice vs not choice is interesting, but not part of the hate speech laws of any jurisdiction. There are plenty of things that are not choices which are nevertheless not covered by hate speech laws, and plenty of things that do involve choice which are protected.
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:41 pm
And, it is not limited to "something outside of people's control", as hate speech laws usually include religion as a protected class.
Religion is a special class. It's a protected species. It shouldn't be, but it is. That's why I said it is "usually concerned with". I'm not reading the rest, as you've got off to such a fucked start, I can't imagine it getting any better.
Well, you weren't getting anywhere that made sense in your rebuttal, so I can't imagine you'd have anything worth a damn to say about it anyway.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 3:07 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 3:02 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:41 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:35 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:38 am

"Mean speech" isn't hate speech. You might not like the tone or content, but that doesn't make it hate speech. Hate speech is usually concerned with targetting people with hate for something outside of their control. So its both irrational and likely more harmful than just plain "mean speech".
The reality is that "targeting people with hate" is meaningless. Is it targeting people with hate to say "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas?"
Morally, not in our countries, as religion is a choice. Legally it can be because religion has infected society and is unfortunately a protected species.
Well, this idea of choice vs not choice is interesting, but not part of the hate speech laws of any jurisdiction. There are plenty of things that are not choices which are nevertheless not covered by hate speech laws,
Irrelevant to the fact that hate speech is usually concerned with things that aren't choices.
and plenty of things that do involve choice which are protected.
Plenty? Let's hear them.
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:41 pm
And, it is not limited to "something outside of people's control", as hate speech laws usually include religion as a protected class.
Religion is a special class. It's a protected species. It shouldn't be, but it is. That's why I said it is "usually concerned with". I'm not reading the rest, as you've got off to such a fucked start, I can't imagine it getting any better.
Well, you weren't getting anywhere that made sense in your rebuttal, so I can't imagine you'd have anything worth a damn to say about it anyway.
Yeah right. You know what? After I wrote that I read what you wrote, and as usual it's full of deliberate misrepresentation of reality. So I'm going to make some comments on it.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 01, 2018 3:20 pm

Image
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 3:22 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 2:35 pm
Is it "targetting people with hate for something outside of their control" to imply that someone is fat, to call them "fatties" outright? What if the target is Donald Trump or Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Well being fat is largely a choice in the regular sense of the word.
In Australia, your federal law makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
Yeah, things people have no choice over.
This law was applied against a person who created a website which denied the holocaust. It was hate speech to simply deny a historical fact - no targeting of anyone for something outside their control.
It was clearly a racial attack, as it is aimed at Jews. Anyone who denies the Holocaust is clearly racist against Jews, or they are an insane conspiracy theorist. I assume the court determined him to be of sound mind. That only leaves racist. Unless you can think of some reason why someone would deny that the most horrific racist episode in humanity's history occurred. And putting all that aside, he wasn't prosecuted for holocaust denial. He was prosecuted for contempt of court regarding the earlier order to remove the material. So while technically the "law was applied against [him]", it wasn't considered a criminal offence in that case. That's a big difference to your rhetorical argument that tries to paint these laws as overly harsh.
You have a statute too that says under Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 that it is a criminal offense to use the Internet in a manner which reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive. Offensive.

Offensive.
Classic 42. If you quoted the next sentence from the wiki article that you cribbed from, it would have destroyed your empty rhetorical attempt. Here's the next sentence: "Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive."
In Victoria, Christian Pastors were subjected to a three year legal battle, where they were originally found guilty of violating the hate speech law there in Victoria by making "controversial" statements about Islam at a seminar. They appealed, and got it reversed, and later settled with the Moslem complainants, but that could easily go the other way. In Victoria, the law says, "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons." So, you can't say that those Christians are lunatics on the internet, without violating the letter of the law, and subjecting oneself to the possibility of prosecution.
Religion. Already covered above. It shouldn't need to be said that everyone here would probably agree that religion shouldn't be included in hate speech.
How about Count Dankula's "Nazi Pug" - the guy was criminally prosecuted for a joke. https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeo ... b10b7765b3
That wasn't in Australia, and it wasn't prosecuted under hate speech laws. It was prosecuted under the UK Communications Act 2003, which doesn't say a single thing about "hate". And while I do think the UK's online laws go too far, this was clearly a racist act. He taught the dog to do it on the command of "gas the jews". It doesn't matter if it was a joke. That's irrelevant. And by broadcasting it, he turned it from simply an offensive personal opinion to an attack on Jews.
Last edited by pErvinalia on Tue May 01, 2018 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 3:24 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 3:20 pm
Image
Are you going to tell us the "plenty" of things which are choices that fall under hate speech laws? I'm expecting a slew of slightly different religiously themed cases in an attempt to meet the bar of "plenty". But maybe you'll surprise me.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60723
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 01, 2018 3:26 pm

And you need to actually read up on the reality of Australia's 18C. I've educated you on this in the past, but it's clearly slipped your mind. Read the following article, it explains it nicely. Take particular note of 18D which is the qualifier on 18C and why only a tiny minority of cases ever get found to breach the Racial Discrimination Act.
Bernardi and Leyonhjelm, and other campaigners for the rollback of 18C, tend to focus on the words “offend” and “insult” that form part of the key phrase in the legislation (“offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”). However, this approach misunderstands the harm threshold in 18C.

The courts have consistently held that the bar is not a low one. To fall within 18C the speech must have:

… profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.

In Eatock v Bolt the Federal Court explained:

The definitions of “insult” and “humiliate” are closely connected to a loss of or lowering of dignity. The word “intimidate” is apt to describe the silencing consequences of the dignity denying impact of racial prejudice as well as the use of threats of violence. The word “offend” is potentially wider, but given the context, “offend” should be interpreted conformably with the words chosen as its partners.

Finally, there is another point that often gets lost in the debate over 18C. As far as legal regulation goes, the regime contained in the Racial Discrimination Act is one of the more modest forms of state intervention. The Human Rights Commission is a neutral facilitator, not an enforcer. And, wherever possible, the aim is to resolve things via conciliation.

Only a very small number of cases ever make their way to the court system. Even where a complaint is upheld, the remedies are hardly draconian. Damages are rarely awarded (and if they are, the amount is modest), and no-one is convicted or goes to prison – because 18C does not create a criminal offence.

Section 18C alone can’t “fix” the problem of racism that continues to exist in Australia. It would be wrong to see it as a magical panacea. But it is equally wrong – and unsupported by the available evidence – to regard 18C as a threat to Australia’s liberal democracy.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-w ... nged-64660
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests