@LadyRhian That depends. Do you trust any politician to ONLY censor actively dangerous talk? Presonally, I don't. Its incredibly easy to politically go from censoring, "We should burn all x at the stake!" to "This person criticized the current administration!" or even, "This person believes differently from me!"
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
@LadyRhian That depends. Do you trust any politician to ONLY censor actively dangerous talk? Presonally, I don't. Its incredibly easy to politically go from censoring, "We should burn all x at the stake!" to "This person criticized the current administration!" or even, "This person believes differently from me!"
There is not a slippery slope in every place you suspect it. Any such law would need to be quite clear (and very limited in scope), but it is not as if a single politician can just decide which speech he wants to censor. No one is talking about introducing the new office of Censor.
Countries like Germany had certain restrictions since their inception without being it having been used to stifle protests in general. And the 1st amendment did not stop the US from passing the Alien and Sedition Acts.
If you look at places with severe restrictions on free speech (i.e. not being allowed to criticize the ruling party) it is always linked to violence. Once a state degrades towards using violence against non-violent protestors the law or constitution is no longer worth the paper it is written on anyway.
Constitutions and laws are important. But for matters like Freedom of Speech and Free Elections what matters is who is in power and how strong their support is in the military and the general populace. It is the political culture that matters, not whether there are some narrow exceptions.
If an Erdogan or a Bolsonaro is in power and has enough support of the population, then it does not matter if there were restrictions on hate speech or not. He'll either change the law or ignore it.
What I am trying to say: allowing all sorts of hate speech now will not protect your democracy in the future. Because the people the hate speech is coming from will not care that you allowed them to speak their mind in the past.
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
No, charge them for using hate speech. Calling for people to be killed isn't right, either. Do you think that people should be able to say, "Balrog99 is X, and thus deserves to die!"?
@Ammar I don't think Germany is the best example for your argument considering that People running against the current administration tend to die. Also, constitution only really matters when people follow it. The current administration clearly has no respect for it.
@LadyRhian If Trump were to propose a bill to restrict hate speech, would you trust it?
@Ammar I don't think Germany is the best example for your argument considering that People running against the current administration tend to die. Also, constitution only really matters when people follow it. The current administration clearly has no respect for it.
@LadyRhian If Trump were to propose a bill to restrict hate speech, would you trust it?
Huh? I am not talking about the Nazis.
As for your hypothetical not addressed to me, it is not realistic enough to answer. First off any such case would be on constitutional level not a simple bill. Then again, I do not trust Trump to produce any reasonable bill. Ask yourself if you trust him to legislate ANY bill for something you support (maybe healthcare).
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
No, charge them for using hate speech. Calling for people to be killed isn't right, either. Do you think that people should be able to say, "Balrog99 is X, and thus deserves to die!"?
If nobody listened I wouldn't care. If they followed me atound like a town-crier then I would have a problem, but that would be harassment which is agsinst the law. I'm a nobody though so the likelihood of me being a target is pretty slim.
@Ammar I don't think Germany is the best example for your argument considering that People running against the current administration tend to die. Also, constitution only really matters when people follow it. The current administration clearly has no respect for it.
@LadyRhian If Trump were to propose a bill to restrict hate speech, would you trust it?
Huh? I am not talking about the Nazis.
As for your hypothetical not addressed to me, it is not realistic enough to answer. First off any such case would be on constitutional level not a simple bill. Then again, I do not trust Trump to produce any reasonable bill. Ask yourself if you trust him to legislate ANY bill for something you support (maybe healthcare).
Well no. Several oppents to Putin have been killed precisely because they oppose Putin. Unless I am a big dumb and have confused Russia and Germany. Also, if you do not trust Trump to legislate such a bill, then the reason I am opposed to it should be obvious. You clearly share the same misgiving.
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
No, charge them for using hate speech. Calling for people to be killed isn't right, either. Do you think that people should be able to say, "Balrog99 is X, and thus deserves to die!"?
If nobody listened I wouldn't care. If they followed me atound like a town-crier then I would have a problem, but that would be harassment which is agsinst the law. I'm a nobody though so the likelihood of me being a target is pretty slim.
That you are unlikely to be the victim is nice for you (same for me), but does not seem relevant. Issue is that in many of the problematic cases people do listen.
As for harassment, agreed, but if the original issue is a slippery slope (I do not believe it has to be) then so is qualifying behaviour as harassment.
@Ammar I don't think Germany is the best example for your argument considering that People running against the current administration tend to die. Also, constitution only really matters when people follow it. The current administration clearly has no respect for it.
@LadyRhian If Trump were to propose a bill to restrict hate speech, would you trust it?
Huh? I am not talking about the Nazis.
As for your hypothetical not addressed to me, it is not realistic enough to answer. First off any such case would be on constitutional level not a simple bill. Then again, I do not trust Trump to produce any reasonable bill. Ask yourself if you trust him to legislate ANY bill for something you support (maybe healthcare).
Well no. Several oppents to Putin have been killed precisely because they oppose Putin. Unless I am a big dumb and have confused Russia and Germany. Also, if you do not trust Trump to legislate such a bill, then the reason I am opposed to it should be obvious. You clearly share the same misgiving.
Again, I do not trust Trump to improve funding for public schools while I am very much in favour of doing so.
It is an absurd hypothetical like whether I would love Trump if he was my daughter. If he were to produce a good constitutional amendment for hate speech I would support it. It just will never happen.
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
No, charge them for using hate speech. Calling for people to be killed isn't right, either. Do you think that people should be able to say, "Balrog99 is X, and thus deserves to die!"?
If nobody listened I wouldn't care. If they followed me atound like a town-crier then I would have a problem, but that would be harassment which is agsinst the law. I'm a nobody though so the likelihood of me being a target is pretty slim.
Need I remind you the people in the synagogue shooting were also "nobodies", and that didn't protect them from being shot by someone who feared and hated them because of what they were, not who they were?
People have mistaken me for someone gay because I have rarely had a boyfriend (never actually really wanted one, to be honest, but it has nothing to do with my sexual orientation). If someone believed me to be gay and shot and killed me because I was perceived to be gay, that I was a nobody wouldn't help matters.
Trump has shown no interest in curbing right wing hate speech or violence. A couple days after the synagogue massacre he's still going on about a conspiracy of a Jewish funded migrant caravan full of Islamic terrorist military invaders.
This is not a guy who acts in good faith. At all.
He has claimed antifa is a violent leftwing mob and said the same thing about Democrats and immigrants. There is no way anything of good faith is coming from that man's party or him especially.
@LadyRhian If Trump were to propose a bill to restrict hate speech, would you trust it?
No, because I have a strong suspicion that Trump defines hate speech as "Being mean (i.e. not supportive of) me, and/or speaking out against my ideas." If he somehow managed to write a legislative bill that was not that, and actually called out actual hate speech, I'd have to read it thoroughly before I'd support it.
But he'd never do that, because he'd fall victim to his own legislation.
And it need not even be rational. I mean, imagine if Trump came out against people who play Baldur's Gate and like and enjoy it and post here because, "We aspire to be the God/Goddess of Murder. They believe that such a deity is their father and they leave bloodshed and murder in their wake! We must take them out to ensure the safety of our Great Country and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Sure, tons of people would laugh at this, as it's just a video game, but there are people on the radical fringe who would accept the words of their great orange godling. Now imagine someone believing this and trying to track down and kill those who play and enjoy the game because we are a danger to the world. You could say the people on this board are worse than MS-13. And some few of his followers would believe it. Enough to make them a danger? Who knows?
Thankfully, that's not even a blip on his radar. But don't assume your personal nobody-ness or irrelevance would somehow save you in this particular case of hate speech.
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
No, charge them for using hate speech. Calling for people to be killed isn't right, either. Do you think that people should be able to say, "Balrog99 is X, and thus deserves to die!"?
If nobody listened I wouldn't care. If they followed me atound like a town-crier then I would have a problem, but that would be harassment which is agsinst the law. I'm a nobody though so the likelihood of me being a target is pretty slim.
Need I remind you the people in the synagogue shooting were also "nobodies", and that didn't protect them from being shot by someone who feared and hated them because of what they were, not who they were?
People have mistaken me for someone gay because I have rarely had a boyfriend (never actually really wanted one, to be honest, but it has nothing to do with my sexual orientation). If someone believed me to be gay and shot and killed me because I was perceived to be gay, that I was a nobody wouldn't help matters.
Being a nobody is like being one herring in a school. The odds are pretty much in favor of nothing ever happening to you.
I agree common sense doesn't appear to be all that common any more. But I still don't think people should be able to say, "All X should die!", either. Or "All X are evil and deserve to die, kill them!"
How do you stop them? Throw them in prison for talking? Imprisoning people for ideas is kinda brutal. It usually doesn't work either...
No, charge them for using hate speech. Calling for people to be killed isn't right, either. Do you think that people should be able to say, "Balrog99 is X, and thus deserves to die!"?
If nobody listened I wouldn't care. If they followed me atound like a town-crier then I would have a problem, but that would be harassment which is agsinst the law. I'm a nobody though so the likelihood of me being a target is pretty slim.
Need I remind you the people in the synagogue shooting were also "nobodies", and that didn't protect them from being shot by someone who feared and hated them because of what they were, not who they were?
People have mistaken me for someone gay because I have rarely had a boyfriend (never actually really wanted one, to be honest, but it has nothing to do with my sexual orientation). If someone believed me to be gay and shot and killed me because I was perceived to be gay, that I was a nobody wouldn't help matters.
Being a nobody is like being one herring in a school. The odds are pretty much in favor of nothing ever happening to you.
I'm not sure if that is comforting to the herring who die.
@LadyRhian That depends. Do you trust any politician to ONLY censor actively dangerous talk? Presonally, I don't. Its incredibly easy to politically go from censoring, "We should burn all x at the stake!" to "This person criticized the current administration!" or even, "This person believes differently from me!"
There is not a slippery slope in every place you suspect it. Any such law would need to be quite clear (and very limited in scope), but it is not as if a single politician can just decide which speech he wants to censor. No one is talking about introducing the new office of Censor.
Countries like Germany had certain restrictions since their inception without being it having been used to stifle protests in general. And the 1st amendment did not stop the US from passing the Alien and Sedition Acts.
If you look at places with severe restrictions on free speech (i.e. not being allowed to criticize the ruling party) it is always linked to violence. Once a state degrades towards using violence against non-violent protestors the law or constitution is no longer worth the paper it is written on anyway.
Constitutions and laws are important. But for matters like Freedom of Speech and Free Elections what matters is who is in power and how strong their support is in the military and the general populace. It is the political culture that matters, not whether there are some narrow exceptions.
If an Erdogan or a Bolsonaro is in power and has enough support of the population, then it does not matter if there were restrictions on hate speech or not. He'll either change the law or ignore it.
What I am trying to say: allowing all sorts of hate speech now will not protect your democracy in the future. Because the people the hate speech is coming from will not care that you allowed them to speak their mind in the past.
Hear hear! Eloquently put!
Hear is my take on free speech; Osama bin Ladin was actually EXECUTED because of his speech - and most people seem to be in favor of that killing.
How far removed are Alex Jones from Osama bin Ladin, when he repeatedly dox the Sandy Hook victims, despite the fact that his deranged fans comes after them every single time? They cannot visit their children's graves, out of fear of being recognized. Yes yes, I know Alex Jones is not quite as bad as Osama, as he does not plan attacks with his speech, nor does he directly call for violence, only dog whistle calling for violence, but that said, it is only luck none have been killed yet, the pizza-gate shooter was a close call. Enough crazy talk and enough deranged followers and things can and will go sour. I wish Trump would take that to heart and stop demagoging - he already caused pipe bombs and synagogue shootings and he keeps calling the media "The enemy of the people". It is only a matter of time.
Now, mind you, I would not mind Trump, Osama bin Ladin or Alex Jones screaming their mind at the top of the lungs in the subway, dressed in rags. Because none would take them seriously and thus none would be inclined to follow their decree. Likewise, I do not have a problem with a friend joking with another friend about an annoying third person "Can't you just kill that guy?". The exact same sentence, however, spoken by a mob boss to one of his minions I DO have a problem with. It is not the speech itself, it is the context in which it is said.
@LadyRhian That depends. Do you trust any politician to ONLY censor actively dangerous talk? Presonally, I don't. Its incredibly easy to politically go from censoring, "We should burn all x at the stake!" to "This person criticized the current administration!" or even, "This person believes differently from me!"
There is not a slippery slope in every place you suspect it. Any such law would need to be quite clear (and very limited in scope), but it is not as if a single politician can just decide which speech he wants to censor. No one is talking about introducing the new office of Censor.
Countries like Germany had certain restrictions since their inception without being it having been used to stifle protests in general. And the 1st amendment did not stop the US from passing the Alien and Sedition Acts.
If you look at places with severe restrictions on free speech (i.e. not being allowed to criticize the ruling party) it is always linked to violence. Once a state degrades towards using violence against non-violent protestors the law or constitution is no longer worth the paper it is written on anyway.
Constitutions and laws are important. But for matters like Freedom of Speech and Free Elections what matters is who is in power and how strong their support is in the military and the general populace. It is the political culture that matters, not whether there are some narrow exceptions.
If an Erdogan or a Bolsonaro is in power and has enough support of the population, then it does not matter if there were restrictions on hate speech or not. He'll either change the law or ignore it.
What I am trying to say: allowing all sorts of hate speech now will not protect your democracy in the future. Because the people the hate speech is coming from will not care that you allowed them to speak their mind in the past.
Hear hear! Eloquently put!
Hear is my take on free speech; Osama bin Ladin was actually EXECUTED because of his speech - and most people seem to be in favor of that killing.
How far removed are Alex Jones from Osama bin Ladin, when he repeatedly dox the Sandy Hook victims, despite the fact that his deranged fans comes after them every single time? They cannot visit their children's graves, out of fear of being recognized. Yes yes, I know Alex Jones is not quite as bad as Osama, as he does not plan attacks with his speech, nor does he directly call for violence, only dog whistle calling for violence, but that said, it is only luck none have been killed yet, the pizza-gate shooter was a close call. Enough crazy talk and enough deranged followers and things can and will go sour. I wish Trump would take that to heart and stop demagoging - he already caused pipe bombs and synagogue shootings and he keeps calling the media "The enemy of the people". It is only a matter of time.
Now, mind you, I would not mind Trump, Osama bin Ladin or Alex Jones screaming their mind at the top of the lungs in the subway, dressed in rags. Because none would take them seriously and thus none would be inclined to follow their decree. Likewise, I do not have a problem with a friend joking with another friend about an annoying third person "Can't you just kill that guy?". The exact same sentence, however, spoken by a mob boss to one of his minions I DO have a problem with. It is not the speech itself, it is the context in which it is said.
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"/"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Yes, the Tar Sands need stronger regulations attached to their operations and I find the Canadian government has a better reputation to this than other countries. I mentioned earlier that one of Canada’s pipeline projects was put on hold because the court found that there wasn’t enough environmental assessments done on the project.
The report is actually addressing the problem and not ignoring it like what is now one of the largest oil spill in history and counting (it’s been happening for 14 years) happening in the Gulf of Mexico and an administration wanting to build more of these structures in Hurricane heavy areas with less regulations.
You know Charles Manson never murdered anyone. He only held rallies where he pushed conspiracy theories and incited his followers to commit acts of violence.
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
Someone disagreeing with you isn't abuse. Neither does it impact your face. Would you care to share what you would consider being abused when it comes to speech?
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
I don't think the capitals help your point. But to go sentence by sentence:
But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? -> Again, I do not think whether I trust Trump to do X has anything to do with whether X is a good policy or not.
Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? -> As long as the law is reasonably well written and the courts still function, this is not an issue. If the courts no longer function then the next Trump can suppress the opposition regardless of what the law says on hate speech. Anyone willing to pervert the law and powerful enough to get away with it is also willing and powerful enough to ignore the law in the first place.
As for the gun laws, I am not sure what the point is.
And obviously I agree that the law should not restrict the freedom of the people when not necessary. But @LadyRhian is absolutely correct - when it impacts on other people badly enough it is exactly the point where it becomes necessary. After all, I am not allowed to dump toxic waste in the local water supply either.
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
Someone disagreeing with you isn't abuse. Neither does it impact your face. Would you care to share what you would consider being abused when it comes to speech?
There are definitions of hate speech, if we are talking about public discourse. One critical point is when you call for crimes of violence against individuals/groups and there is enough built up animosity in your audience that someone might take you seriously, so that this might be the final drop that pushes them over the edge.
Examples include calls for lynchings or some of the most extreme Gamergaters, who threatened/called for their opponents being raped.
The point of the gun law is that laws always evolve. They are never stagnant. Do you think the writers of the constitution envisioned people mowing down schools and churches with fully automatic weapons, and then use the 2nd Amendment to protect peoples' ability to keep doing so? The same can very wasily happen with speech censorship. Where is the line drawn between hate speech, and a disagreement? Would you expect that line to never move or be abused in the future?
Do you think our courts still function? How about our laws? We have an administration that openly shows zero respect for either. So if your law was to come into existence now, it would 100% be abused.
Also, harassment is already a thing. If a person is hounding you with their speech, you CAN ALREADY take legal action to protect yourself/punish them. Do you think harassment laws aren't enough?
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
For the majority of the US' existence most people (and the Supreme Court) accepted that the constitution originally gave the right to bear arms as that was necessary for the survival of the country (to allow a militia to be called upon). The NRA has been extremely successful in their indoctrination campaign in convincing most people that the constitution was always intended to give an absolute individual right to bear arms, but that is a recent revision of history.
The example of gun laws demonstrates to me that no law will ever be safe in perpetuity. There's always scope for reinterpretation and, yes, that would mean that a law circumscribing free speech could be abused. I don't think though that's a good argument for saying there shouldn't be such a law (and of course there are currently laws in the US that do circumscribe free speech in certain situations). It's just a good reason why people should continually be on their guard against those who might wish to reinterpret and abuse the law - that can happen whether a law was originally designed to restrict or enhance the freedom of the people (birthright citizenship ringing any bells here ). Isn't there a saying something like "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" ...
Comments
Countries like Germany had certain restrictions since their inception without being it having been used to stifle protests in general. And the 1st amendment did not stop the US from passing the Alien and Sedition Acts.
If you look at places with severe restrictions on free speech (i.e. not being allowed to criticize the ruling party) it is always linked to violence. Once a state degrades towards using violence against non-violent protestors the law or constitution is no longer worth the paper it is written on anyway.
Constitutions and laws are important. But for matters like Freedom of Speech and Free Elections what matters is who is in power and how strong their support is in the military and the general populace. It is the political culture that matters, not whether there are some narrow exceptions.
If an Erdogan or a Bolsonaro is in power and has enough support of the population, then it does not matter if there were restrictions on hate speech or not. He'll either change the law or ignore it.
What I am trying to say: allowing all sorts of hate speech now will not protect your democracy in the future. Because the people the hate speech is coming from will not care that you allowed them to speak their mind in the past.
@LadyRhian If Trump were to propose a bill to restrict hate speech, would you trust it?
As for your hypothetical not addressed to me, it is not realistic enough to answer. First off any such case would be on constitutional level not a simple bill. Then again, I do not trust Trump to produce any reasonable bill. Ask yourself if you trust him to legislate ANY bill for something you support (maybe healthcare).
As for harassment, agreed, but if the original issue is a slippery slope (I do not believe it has to be) then so is qualifying behaviour as harassment.
It is an absurd hypothetical like whether I would love Trump if he was my daughter. If he were to produce a good constitutional amendment for hate speech I would support it. It just will never happen.
People have mistaken me for someone gay because I have rarely had a boyfriend (never actually really wanted one, to be honest, but it has nothing to do with my sexual orientation). If someone believed me to be gay and shot and killed me because I was perceived to be gay, that I was a nobody wouldn't help matters.
This is not a guy who acts in good faith. At all.
He has claimed antifa is a violent leftwing mob and said the same thing about Democrats and immigrants. There is no way anything of good faith is coming from that man's party or him especially.
But he'd never do that, because he'd fall victim to his own legislation.
Sure, tons of people would laugh at this, as it's just a video game, but there are people on the radical fringe who would accept the words of their great orange godling. Now imagine someone believing this and trying to track down and kill those who play and enjoy the game because we are a danger to the world. You could say the people on this board are worse than MS-13. And some few of his followers would believe it. Enough to make them a danger? Who knows?
Thankfully, that's not even a blip on his radar. But don't assume your personal nobody-ness or irrelevance would somehow save you in this particular case of hate speech.
Hear is my take on free speech; Osama bin Ladin was actually EXECUTED because of his speech - and most people seem to be in favor of that killing.
How far removed are Alex Jones from Osama bin Ladin, when he repeatedly dox the Sandy Hook victims, despite the fact that his deranged fans comes after them every single time? They cannot visit their children's graves, out of fear of being recognized. Yes yes, I know Alex Jones is not quite as bad as Osama, as he does not plan attacks with his speech, nor does he directly call for violence, only dog whistle calling for violence, but that said, it is only luck none have been killed yet, the pizza-gate shooter was a close call. Enough crazy talk and enough deranged followers and things can and will go sour. I wish Trump would take that to heart and stop demagoging - he already caused pipe bombs and synagogue shootings and he keeps calling the media "The enemy of the people". It is only a matter of time.
Now, mind you, I would not mind Trump, Osama bin Ladin or Alex Jones screaming their mind at the top of the lungs in the subway, dressed in rags. Because none would take them seriously and thus none would be inclined to follow their decree. Likewise, I do not have a problem with a friend joking with another friend about an annoying third person "Can't you just kill that guy?". The exact same sentence, however, spoken by a mob boss to one of his minions I DO have a problem with. It is not the speech itself, it is the context in which it is said.
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect Robert Bowers pleads not guilty
https://globalnews.ca/news/4618935/pittsburgh-shooting-suspect-not-guilty-plea/?utm_source=notification/@deltago
Cleaning up Alberta’s oilpatch could cost $260 billion, regulatory documents warn
https://globalnews.ca/news/4617664/cleaning-up-albertas-oilpatch-could-cost-260-billion-regulatory-documents-warn/?utm_source=notification/Pittsburgh Synagogue Suspect Robert Bowers Hated Trump—for Not Hating Jews
https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-bowers-is-neo-nazi-who-posted-about-killing-jews-on-gabAll References to Transgender Americans Scrubbed From Government Websites
https://medium.com/@Phaylen/all-references-to-transgender-americans-scrubbed-from-government-websites-45a455259e4c?fbclid=IwAR2jrvB2m066p1Y3fGI2AcSFf3FcD1CwIURBzY_3-wZ0Y6V3D180K4o0dbsGOP Lawmaker Drafts Document Calling For Murders Of Those Who Defy Bible
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/gop-lawmaker-drafts-document-calling-for-murders-of-those-who-defy-bible-8sSEYqhi5k25ZESn0zCD_Q?utm_source=A Science Enthusiast&utm_medium=A Science Enthusiast&utm_campaign=A Science Enthusiast&utm_term=A Science Enthusiast&utm_content=A Science EnthusiastDonald Trump wants to ban the internet, plans to ask Bill Gates to ‘close it up’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-wants-to-ban-the-internet-will-ask-bill-gates-to-close-it-up-a6764396.htmlTruth or fiction?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-wants-shut-internet/
Jimmy Carter sends letter to Georgia Republican governor candidate asking him to resign
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/midterms-2018/jimmy-carter-brian-kemp-stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-race-midterm-elections-vote-a8606811.htmlNazi Christmas ornaments and KKK robe sold at Louisville gun show
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2018/10/29/nazi-ornaments-kkk-robe-sold-louisville-expo-center/1807966002/Kentucky fair officials to propose ban on 'items of hate' after Nazi, KKK memorabilia sold at gun show
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kentucky-fair-officials-to-propose-ban-on-items-of-hate-after-nazi-kkk-memorabilia-sold-at-gun-show/ar-BBPavh3The report is actually addressing the problem and not ignoring it like what is now one of the largest oil spill in history and counting (it’s been happening for 14 years) happening in the Gulf of Mexico and an administration wanting to build more of these structures in Hurricane heavy areas with less regulations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-14-year-long-oil-spill-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-verges-on-becoming-one-of-the-worst-in-us-history/2018/10/20/f9a66fd0-9045-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a60008def29
But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? -> Again, I do not think whether I trust Trump to do X has anything to do with whether X is a good policy or not.
Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? -> As long as the law is reasonably well written and the courts still function, this is not an issue. If the courts no longer function then the next Trump can suppress the opposition regardless of what the law says on hate speech. Anyone willing to pervert the law and powerful enough to get away with it is also willing and powerful enough to ignore the law in the first place.
As for the gun laws, I am not sure what the point is.
And obviously I agree that the law should not restrict the freedom of the people when not necessary. But @LadyRhian is absolutely correct - when it impacts on other people badly enough it is exactly the point where it becomes necessary. After all, I am not allowed to dump toxic waste in the local water supply either.
Examples include calls for lynchings or some of the most extreme Gamergaters, who threatened/called for their opponents being raped.
The point of the gun law is that laws always evolve. They are never stagnant. Do you think the writers of the constitution envisioned people mowing down schools and churches with fully automatic weapons, and then use the 2nd Amendment to protect peoples' ability to keep doing so? The same can very wasily happen with speech censorship. Where is the line drawn between hate speech, and a disagreement? Would you expect that line to never move or be abused in the future?
Do you think our courts still function? How about our laws? We have an administration that openly shows zero respect for either. So if your law was to come into existence now, it would 100% be abused.
Also, harassment is already a thing. If a person is hounding you with their speech, you CAN ALREADY take legal action to protect yourself/punish them. Do you think harassment laws aren't enough?
The example of gun laws demonstrates to me that no law will ever be safe in perpetuity. There's always scope for reinterpretation and, yes, that would mean that a law circumscribing free speech could be abused. I don't think though that's a good argument for saying there shouldn't be such a law (and of course there are currently laws in the US that do circumscribe free speech in certain situations). It's just a good reason why people should continually be on their guard against those who might wish to reinterpret and abuse the law - that can happen whether a law was originally designed to restrict or enhance the freedom of the people (birthright citizenship ringing any bells here