Outlawing "hate speech" & seemingly unrelated consequences.

Post Reply New Topic

That would be curtailing the freedom of speech and the bottom line of business as people will find out, associate it with your company and avoid your company. It is impractical today. What made it work back then was that if a model employee off-site went got drunk and acted like a fool it was likely the only people who would know about it is the people who were there. There were no devices around to record the incident and post it on social media.

Oh okay, but are people actually crazy passionate enough that they wouldn't shop at a store for example, without researching the employees and finding out about the crazy things they have done that got posted on social media in the last ten years?

I don't have time to investigate that stuff, so do a lot of people actually do that, before choosing to buy a product from a business?

No one does that without a reason, so the chilling effect that some fear seems far-fetched.

Yes, it’s usually the other way around - someone is recorded doing something bad, or Tweets something insensitive, and people pressure their employer.

I don’t think outrage mobs are a good way for justice to be conducted. They work on occasion but they are rarely proportionate and even more rarely will they accept restoration and similar.

I’m also, if I’m honest, not that keen on traditional methods of justice for dealing with hate speech. I think judges and juries and prosecutors and expert witnesses are often too disconnected from the culture in which the speech takes place. That cuts both ways, they may miss a dog whistle or not realise that the offender had no way of telling it was a dog whistle; they might not realise the ways a term is used by young people, or minority groups, or LGBT people and their allies.

If we say “it’s only a hate crime if there is violence or an explicit threat or endorsement of violence that is explicitly targeted along prohibited lines”... well, that’s not much good either, as all you have to do is be slightly implicit. If someone graffitis 14:88 on the front of a Jewish owned business then that is clearly a hate crime even though it’s just two numbers.

It is therefore very difficult to design a proper hate crime law that can actually be administered. I think there will inevitably be miscarriages of justice - but then there are inevitably miscarriages of justice with any law, and that isn’t a good argument for anarchy.

What would be the reason for doing it then, for a person to go that far out of their way to see if anyone in a business deserves to be fired, or so they think?

I mean it to me it just seems crazy. It's like if went to go a by a car, and then I told the car salesman, "one of the employees who works here, dumped his gf for having a homosexual affair, 13 years ago. I won't by the car unless you fire that person", etc. Or something along those lines.

I'm agreeing with you that it seems crazy.

I think you're referring to "cancel culture". Realize that with "cancel culture" against those labeled "bad", "evil", "conservative" etc, (synonymous to some) there is no time limitation. That's been evidenced by recent political elections and appointments (e.g. Roy Moore and Justice Cavanaugh). It's only one sided apparently (double standard) since Gov Ralph Northam got a pass and what was the name of the African American politician on the East Coast that was alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman? All's fair in politics I guess?

Substantial allegations against prominent figures, not trivial accusations against some random schmuck like you're fear-mongering about.

I can have sympathy with people saying we should forgive minor youthful indiscretions, particularly when the accused has grown up and matured as a person.

That does not really extend to sexual assault where there is no evidence of contrition. Roy Moore sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl when he was 32. He also preyed on a 16 year old girl in the same fashion. That is indefensible. The people of Alabama understandably rejected Roy Moore. Alabama is not known as a hotbed of SJWs.

Similarly Brett Kavanaugh committed a serious sexual assault. Like Moore, there is no evidence that he has tried to make his victim whole or take any action to make up for his crime, indeed it seems to have been a pattern of behaviour that he has no regret about. Unlike Moore, Kavanaugh has faced zero consequences for this action, but it is quite right that at the very least it was investigated. It raises serious questions about whether he should be a SCOTUS justice.

Several Democratic figures have been credibly accused of sexual assault and some have faced the consequences. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) was forced to resign over sexual assault allegations. Reps. John Conyers (D-Michigan), Ruben Kihun (D-NV), and Eric Massa (D-NY) also had to resign. I found 19 instances of Democratic state-level officials suffering serious consequences (ranging from fines and demotion to resignation) as a result of accusations of sexual impropriety listed on Wikipedia - it wasn’t a great page but they were over approximately the decade 2008-18.

So:

- Accusations of sexual assault are not one-sided

- Not all people accused face consequences

- Sexual assault isn’t something that can be brushed away, particularly when it’s a pattern of predatory paedophilia.

I hadn't heard about that...I knew he was ACCUSED of this, but I don't recall anywhere indicating an admission of the act, nor any findings of such action from a court of law.

You wouldn't have a link to the information where this was confirmed, rather than being a mere accusation (committed does have rather specific meaning when used with regards to legal matters such as this), as having been found to have comitted this accusation, rather than merely being accussed of it, would have had an impact on his being able to practice law\become a judge, I would have thought. (Being that he "committed" the offence whilst others, according to your post, were only "credibly accussed", I'm surprised I was unable to find the information online confirming he had committed this act, so any assistance with links to the confirmation of this having occurred would be greatly appreciated).

The woman making the allegation (Dr Blasey-Ford) was a credible witness as she was a clinical psychologist with a PhD who had counselled rape victims herself.

The legal argument that Blasey-Ford should have come forward immediately after the alleged incident with Kavanaugh is not supported by forensic psychological evidence where it is well known most rape victims choose to withold information about their assault due to personal embarrassment and stigma. This has been well documented after the Bill Cosby case.

At the end of the day the decision not to pursue the allegation by the FBI was based more on political pressure than actual hard science.

But if that was the case, this would still sit at the level of "credibly accussed", not "committed" (a distinction made in the original post regarding other people), as I recall that there was equally evidence provided that it could not have happened, making it (at most) a contested allegation.

The accuser's qualifications would have no bearing on this, as they could equally be considered (from the other side) to indicate that she would have the knowledge\experience with what to say and how to say it in order to present information that may not be accurate, yet believable. (I'm not saying she did, just pointing out the possibility).

If your claim regarding the FBI is accurate, I'm surprised there have been no FoI cases to get information regarding the case and its handling, as this would have been front-page news (My understanding was they were preparing a report, not conducting an investigation...Although had their been sufficient information come out of that process an investigation would have commenced). I am also curious as to why this was never followed up (police report\investigation, however delayed, for example), having been considered so serious\important\needing an investigation at the time the claims were made: Is there a statute of limitation on this type of case in the area it is claimed to have occurred (which would explain this)?

There is some cross-over with the Bill Cosby rape case with the statute of limitations being invoked. There is also the added issue that Kavanaugh assaulted Blasey-Ford but was too drunk to penetrate her. My guess that's the reasoning for why the court did not pursue the case.

Blasey-Ford was already a prominent psychologist and a university professor so there was certainly no benefit for her in gaining notoriety or publicity.

I don't know how open the FBI are? again there statutes that allow the FBI to withold or redact information requested under FOI

Again, has it been confirmed (assaulted), or unconfirmed (allegedly assualted)?

If there has been a legal finding (or not contested by the other party), then the former is appropriate, however should the facts be disputed (as I believe they are in this case), then it would be both inappropriate, and potentially misleading, to make a claim such as that...Not to mention the potential defamatory\libel claim that could be made against someone making those statements without supporting evidence.

As I understand it, should the information be able to be retrieved (Dr Ford, bieng the affected person being in the best position to get it), the only redactions likely would be personally identifying infomation, or information regarding certain methods of acquiring the information contained (unlikely in this case)...I'm sure there would have been front page news about the FBI blocking the release of the information, had someone tried unsuccessfully to get it, considering the importance of the case.