The censorious political left and free speech
15 Oct 2018, 11:52 am
Even if it is merely more Trump bluster at this stage, it has an ominous tone, when seen in the wider context.
Interestingly, although New Zealand doesn't have a written constitution - we rely on both international and NZ law relating to human rights to protect our citizens - I can confidently say that no NZ politician nor party would even say such a thing, even in jest. It would be a fast road to a snap election and political disgrace.
Sadly, anything goes in terms of Trump's freedom of speech, he gaslights the whole of the USA nearly every day. It astonishes the world.
15 Oct 2018, 1:19 pm
Mythos wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Mythos wrote:
I understand your concerns are valid, but in reality there is no definition of free speech that satisfies all. Personally, I don't think as an example Nazism should be protected but some people regard censoring neonazi lies and slander as "free speech". Is it, though? Not in my opinion; it's a hate crime and misinformation, both of which need to be stamped out posthaste.
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
Hate speech is not a crime, nor is misinformation. I certainly understand your sentiments, and I wish there weren't so many ignorant, bigoted bastards around. But the first Amendment protects all speech, regardless of how vile it may be. That's the price of living in a free society. We have to put with everyone's opinions, even if we find them objectionable. Once we start determining which speech is acceptable or not, then we ae on a nonstop course to total fascism.
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship; it's a counter argument.
Even that's becoming more of a gray area though. Someone could say X is bad. Another person hears that and goes and commits violence against X. There would definitely be an uproar and people stating the first person's speech encouraged the violence when all he did was call X bad.
15 Oct 2018, 11:33 pm
Tim_Tex wrote:
I think we need to be crystal clear as to what constitutes hate speech. Calls to violence should definitely fall under that category, as should Holocaust denial/defense.
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
As horrible as denying the holocaust it’s not hate speech it’s their belief and opinion.
It’s not illegal. There’s a difference between call of action and opinion. Saying I’ll pay someone to kill a ice officer. Is a call to action. Saying abolish ice is r even though some might commit crimes after hearing it.
FYI the liberal who said he’d pay money for anyone willing to kill ice officers was n very charged with anything, neither have the people twitting who’s willing to take one for the team and kill trump(or judge guy) thos are calls to action
15 Oct 2018, 11:37 pm
Bataar wrote:
Mythos wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Mythos wrote:
I understand your concerns are valid, but in reality there is no definition of free speech that satisfies all. Personally, I don't think as an example Nazism should be protected but some people regard censoring neonazi lies and slander as "free speech". Is it, though? Not in my opinion; it's a hate crime and misinformation, both of which need to be stamped out posthaste.
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
Hate speech is not a crime, nor is misinformation. I certainly understand your sentiments, and I wish there weren't so many ignorant, bigoted bastards around. But the first Amendment protects all speech, regardless of how vile it may be. That's the price of living in a free society. We have to put with everyone's opinions, even if we find them objectionable. Once we start determining which speech is acceptable or not, then we ae on a nonstop course to total fascism.
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship; it's a counter argument.
Even that's becoming more of a gray area though. Someone could say X is bad. Another person hears that and goes and commits violence against X. There would definitely be an uproar and people stating the first person's speech encouraged the violence when all he did was call X bad.
Only when it’s someone non left leaning. The cop killing was in response to the protest against cops with people chanting what do we want dead cops. There was no uproar.
16 Oct 2018, 1:27 am
The extremes of both sides advocate for censorship, neither believe in free speech, and both annoy me to no end. I wish this horrid political climate would die a horrible death, but alas, stupid and annoying people will keep it alive rather than tearing it limb for limb and dumping it in the bottom of the ocean.
Oh, and here's my unpopular opinion: SJWs aren't true Liberals, and the Democrat party are Conservatives who just want the misinformed public to believe they're Liberals. SJWs believe in a "progressive" form of inequality, but that's still inequality. One of the pillars of Liberalism is equality for all, not equality for all who aren't straight, white and male.
As for the Democrats, I could probably write an essay on why they're actually Conservatives. To cite one clear example, the Democrats chose to back Hillary in the last election, who probably would have won had she not been caught red-handed conspiring to commit a very capitalist crime. Also, if you know her history, it's laughable that she should claim to be a champion for feminism. That's a ruse if I ever saw one. There's sufficient evidence that the lot of them have just as many corporate interests as their Republican brethren. The only difference is one party tries to hide their nature and appease left-leaning individuals, while the other doesn't.
Beyond political parties though, all this identity politics nonsense just grinds my gears, and no one who gets caught up in it that I've ever met truly believes in free speech.
16 Oct 2018, 2:02 am
Right or Left, free speech needs to be coupled with a sense of moral responsibility to work as the founders intended, and if the latter is taken away, or is intentionally undermined and distorted, then "free speech" can degenerate into nothing more than this zero sum game.
We all know how it functions in the current regime in the USA.
16 Oct 2018, 12:19 pm
sly279 wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
I think we need to be crystal clear as to what constitutes hate speech. Calls to violence should definitely fall under that category, as should Holocaust denial/defense.
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
As horrible as denying the holocaust it’s not hate speech it’s their belief and opinion.
It’s not illegal. There’s a difference between call of action and opinion. Saying I’ll pay someone to kill a ice officer. Is a call to action. Saying abolish ice is r even though some might commit crimes after hearing it.
FYI the liberal who said he’d pay money for anyone willing to kill ice officers was n very charged with anything, neither have the people twitting who’s willing to take one for the team and kill trump(or judge guy) thos are calls to action
Any degree of questioning very clear cut genocide should be regarded with absolute contempt. This extends to those claiming the recent school shootings were fake and used crisis actors (teens and other students who likely will have to live with it on their minds for the rest of their lives) to forward a narrative.
16 Oct 2018, 5:43 pm
Mythos wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
I think we need to be crystal clear as to what constitutes hate speech. Calls to violence should definitely fall under that category, as should Holocaust denial/defense.
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
As horrible as denying the holocaust it’s not hate speech it’s their belief and opinion.
It’s not illegal. There’s a difference between call of action and opinion. Saying I’ll pay someone to kill a ice officer. Is a call to action. Saying abolish ice is r even though some might commit crimes after hearing it.
FYI the liberal who said he’d pay money for anyone willing to kill ice officers was n very charged with anything, neither have the people twitting who’s willing to take one for the team and kill trump(or judge guy) thos are calls to action
Any degree of questioning very clear cut genocide should be regarded with absolute contempt. This extends to those claiming the recent school shootings were fake and used crisis actors (teens and other students who likely will have to live with it on their minds for the rest of their lives) to forward a narrative.
Those nations don’t have free speech or freedom in general.
Your political enemies will gladly make things you believe illegal too would you like that?
It’s not illegal to have crazy beliefs, should we make thinking the earth is flat illegal too I’m sure atheist would love to make religious beliefs illegal except for Islam of course.
Personally I’d like to make any lies about gun control illegal so anytime someone says ar15 is a assault weapon or assault rifle lock them up for 2 years, sound fair? Anytime someone says the us has a mass shooting every day lock them up too, we’d have all anti gun people locked up for years yay thought control freak free speech am I right?
Currently trumps in power so I’m sure anyone disagreeing with him will be locked up. Well have to build more prisons.
Or we could just keep free speech and let everyon think and believe whatever they want aslong as they don’t physical harm anyone.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,389
Location: Long Island, New York
17 Oct 2018, 12:07 pm
AspE wrote:
I don't recall anyone on the left calling the press the enemy of the people, or apologizing for countries that murder journalists.
One side is probably worse than the other. We can engage in the oppression Olympics and spend days arguing about who that is. This obscures the situation we have which is that both sides are undermining this country by eating away at core values and the institutions set up to protect them.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
18 Oct 2018, 9:37 am
ASPartOfMe wrote:
AspE wrote:
I don't recall anyone on the left calling the press the enemy of the people, or apologizing for countries that murder journalists.
One side is probably worse than the other. We can engage in the oppression Olympics and spend days arguing about who that is. This obscures the situation we have which is that both sides are undermining this country by eating away at core values and the institutions set up to protect them.
No, both sides aren't doing that. One side is doing that.
Censorship is nothing new though, the movie industry was confronted a century ago by a backlash of Christian conservatives concerned that movies depicted things like kissing, drugs, implied sex, and divorce. It wasn't until Psycho that a toilet was shown in a movie. Then there's the Satanic Panic of the 1980's and Tipper Gore's campaign against naughty language in music. Look at the FCC vs Howard Stern.
Compare that to university students rejecting admitted reactionary trolls with no intellectual credentials who just want to establish the meme that higher education is a liberal plot against the country.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,389
Location: Long Island, New York
18 Oct 2018, 3:54 pm
AspE wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
AspE wrote:
I don't recall anyone on the left calling the press the enemy of the people, or apologizing for countries that murder journalists.
One side is probably worse than the other. We can engage in the oppression Olympics and spend days arguing about who that is. This obscures the situation we have which is that both sides are undermining this country by eating away at core values and the institutions set up to protect them.
No, both sides aren't doing that. One side is doing that.
.
Soviet Union, Mao They had apologists in their time.
Enemy of the people
Quote:
In the United States during the 1960s leftist organizations such as the Black Panther Party and Students for a Democratic Society were known to use the term. In one inter-party dispute in February 1971, for example, Black Panther leader Huey P. Newton denounced two other Panthers as "enemies of the people" for allegedly putting party leaders and members in jeopardy.
Then there all those hate speech codes and harrassment campaigns against people deemed Nazi or racist etc.
Facebook Page Ban Fox News
Should Fox News be shut down?
Move on Org Petition - Remove Fox News from cable TV
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
18 Oct 2018, 4:28 pm
Tross wrote:
The extremes of both sides advocate for censorship, neither believe in free speech, and both annoy me to no end. I wish this horrid political climate would die a horrible death, but alas, stupid and annoying people will keep it alive rather than tearing it limb for limb and dumping it in the bottom of the ocean.
Oh, and here's my unpopular opinion: SJWs aren't true Liberals, and the Democrat party are Conservatives who just want the misinformed public to believe they're Liberals. SJWs believe in a "progressive" form of inequality, but that's still inequality. One of the pillars of Liberalism is equality for all, not equality for all who aren't straight, white and male.
As for the Democrats, I could probably write an essay on why they're actually Conservatives. To cite one clear example, the Democrats chose to back Hillary in the last election, who probably would have won had she not been caught red-handed conspiring to commit a very capitalist crime. Also, if you know her history, it's laughable that she should claim to be a champion for feminism. That's a ruse if I ever saw one. There's sufficient evidence that the lot of them have just as many corporate interests as their Republican brethren. The only difference is one party tries to hide their nature and appease left-leaning individuals, while the other doesn't.
Beyond political parties though, all this identity politics nonsense just grinds my gears, and no one who gets caught up in it that I've ever met truly believes in free speech.
Oh, and here's my unpopular opinion: SJWs aren't true Liberals, and the Democrat party are Conservatives who just want the misinformed public to believe they're Liberals. SJWs believe in a "progressive" form of inequality, but that's still inequality. One of the pillars of Liberalism is equality for all, not equality for all who aren't straight, white and male.
As for the Democrats, I could probably write an essay on why they're actually Conservatives. To cite one clear example, the Democrats chose to back Hillary in the last election, who probably would have won had she not been caught red-handed conspiring to commit a very capitalist crime. Also, if you know her history, it's laughable that she should claim to be a champion for feminism. That's a ruse if I ever saw one. There's sufficient evidence that the lot of them have just as many corporate interests as their Republican brethren. The only difference is one party tries to hide their nature and appease left-leaning individuals, while the other doesn't.
Beyond political parties though, all this identity politics nonsense just grinds my gears, and no one who gets caught up in it that I've ever met truly believes in free speech.
Honestly, it's hard to actually differentiate between SJWs and "liberals" (modern US meaning), the line looks more blurred. My perspective of it.
I also happen to think conservatives or the right feeling angry or persecuted is fair game. Just the equivalent tune of the left is more always-present and dominant.
I'm considered "right" in the modern US political climate.
18 Oct 2018, 10:21 pm
Hollywood_Guy wrote:
Honestly, it's hard to actually differentiate between SJWs and "liberals" (modern US meaning), the line looks more blurred. My perspective of it.
I also happen to think conservatives or the right feeling angry or persecuted is fair game. Just the equivalent tune of the left is more always-present and dominant.
I'm considered "right" in the modern US political climate.
I also happen to think conservatives or the right feeling angry or persecuted is fair game. Just the equivalent tune of the left is more always-present and dominant.
I'm considered "right" in the modern US political climate.
Conservatives are angry? You now control all three branches of government? What the more do you want? The majority of people don't like conservatives these days because you guys elected a narcissistic sociopathic bully for President. Keep crying about persecution though. If you can't take punches, stop dishing them out.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Free Will or Otherwise |
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am |
| Gluten Free recipe ideas Needed |
10 Apr 2024, 10:03 am |
