Page 3 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Which SHOULD be criminalized?
Public prayer NOT in church, mosque etc. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Libel and slander 23%  23%  [ 7 ]
Revealing state secrets 23%  23%  [ 7 ]
Criticizing the government 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Use of offensive vocabulary 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Talk demeaning minorities 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Vocal picketing of abortion clinics, churches, schools 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Heckling speakers 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Inciting to riot 23%  23%  [ 7 ]
Chatting during a performance 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Obscenity and blasphemy 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Publishing junk science 16%  16%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 31

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jul 2011, 12:47 pm

I am not now nor have I ever been nor am I likely to be in the position of running the country ore even doing anything much of anyone cares about.

Still, two principles generally apply:

Do right and fear no man.

Don't do or say anything you could not live with if it became common knowledge.

Good Christian and Buiddhist principles and practical common sense.

I got stories and anecdotes. Like the train one.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jul 2011, 12:51 pm

Philologos wrote:
I am not now nor have I ever been nor am I likely to be in the position of running the country ore even doing anything much of anyone cares about.

Still, two principles generally apply:

Do right and fear no man.

Don't do or say anything you could not live with if it became common knowledge.

Good Christian and Buiddhist principles and practical common sense.

I got stories and anecdotes. Like the train one.


Hillel said do not to unto others what you find hateful if done to you.

I think all of this is on the same wavelength and the same page.

ruveyun



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

16 Jul 2011, 12:54 pm

Revealing state secrets should be illegal if it doesn't reveal any criminal activity since it is a security risk.



TheSnarkKnight
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 171
Location: BEHIND YOU!!!

16 Jul 2011, 1:13 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
There is nothing on that list I have not done. :lol:
well except the junk science but even that is debatable.


We may not be able keep people from publishing junk science, though I think if they are proven wrong and that their advice has caused harm then they should have to suffer the consequences. Everyone here is all too familiar with Andrew Wakefield's "research" into vaccines, and because of his publishings, combined with the fearmongering of various high-profile public figures, fewer people are getting vaccinated and we're seeing a resurgence of preventable diseases. Wakefield may have lost his license, but the damage has been done.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jul 2011, 1:48 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
There is nothing on that list I have not done. :lol:
well except the junk science but even that is debatable.


What is "junk science". Clearly it cannot be just wrong science. For example the caloric theory of heat. For a long time it was believed heat was some mysterious fluid that flowed from bodies we call hotter to bodies we call cooler. The theory has been falsified empirically, but in its time it made perfectly good sense. So caloric theory is wrong science which is not "junk science".

ruveyn



TheSnarkKnight
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 171
Location: BEHIND YOU!!!

16 Jul 2011, 2:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
There is nothing on that list I have not done. :lol:
well except the junk science but even that is debatable.


What is "junk science". Clearly it cannot be just wrong science. For example the caloric theory of heat. For a long time it was believed heat was some mysterious fluid that flowed from bodies we call hotter to bodies we call cooler. The theory has been falsified empirically, but in its time it made perfectly good sense. So caloric theory is wrong science which is not "junk science".

ruveyn


Junk science is not just wrong science; it tends to refer to scientific studies that would be of no benefit or possibly harmful if applied by the public (such as the Wakefield vaccine studies).



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

16 Jul 2011, 2:02 pm

"Junk Science" == Homeopathy, extra-sensory perception, radionics, ufology, dowsing, perpetual motion, cryptozoology, heliocentricism, intelligent design, astrology, flat Earth, dianetics, biorhythms, chiropractic, iridology, feng shui, and others.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

16 Jul 2011, 2:29 pm

I don't think any type of speech should be banned. I don't care what it is. People can work out for themselves whether what they're hearing is legit or not. There's a lot of stuff people say which I disagree with but I don't think any of it should be banned.

Besides - and I've said this so many times before - if you ban something, it will only make people more interested in it. This is a well known proven psychological fact.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jul 2011, 2:56 pm

Fnord wrote:
"Junk Science" == Homeopathy, extra-sensory perception, radionics, ufology, dowsing, perpetual motion, cryptozoology, heliocentricism, intelligent design, astrology, flat Earth, dianetics, biorhythms, chiropractic, iridology, feng shui, and others.


You forgot - among others - psychiatry. And the less successful sectors of sciences you would probably accept - stratificational grammar, glottochronology and "Governmernt and Bonding" in my own Linguistics, predictive meteorology, attempts to put "whys" into evolution, and so on.

You ignore the practical sides of at least homeopathy and chiropractic [yes, the theoretical sides of both stink], and you seem ignorant of the fact that there are "biorhythms" With biorhythms as with vitamins, there are real phenomena an real scientific understandings which their over enthusiastic adoption by cranks and crackpots cannot negate.

In fact, your list is not well set out. You lump - as things you see from where you stand as hokum -

A obsolete views of the physical universe [flat earth, earth as center of the solar system which you - inadvertently, I am sure - call heliocentrism!

B unproven and / or unprovable interpretations of generally accepted data [ufology (a poor choice of label for the hypothesis that alien vehicles have visited us), intelligent design]

C legitimate research endeavors which have as yet produced few startling results [extrasensory perception (another bad name), cryptozoology - and if you put that here you need to include the SETI Institute]

D fields with pracxtical results and bad theory begging to be done right [homeopasthy, chiropractic

I could extend the list - you mishmash. Why do you separate dowsing and ESP?

I continue to recommend working out a coherent position before posting,. Admittedly, it loses that flow of energy, but makes for a better outcome.



PrivateEyes
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 65
Location: San Bernardino, California USA

18 Jul 2011, 12:13 am

TheSnarkKnight wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
There is nothing on that list I have not done. :lol:
well except the junk science but even that is debatable.


We may not be able keep people from publishing junk science, though I think if they are proven wrong and that their advice has caused harm then they should have to suffer the consequences. Everyone here is all too familiar with Andrew Wakefield's "research" into vaccines, and because of his publishings, combined with the fearmongering of various high-profile public figures, fewer people are getting vaccinated and we're seeing a resurgence of preventable diseases. Wakefield may have lost his license, but the damage has been done.


A natural consequence for wrong thinking is pubic distain. It shouldn't be government sensorship. Once you start going after people like Andrew Wakefield, who's to stop others from going after you for your views? Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. Also science as most good scientists know does not offer a final word on truth. We may have good reasons for rejecting Wakefield's research now, but science has a potential to exonerate him in the future. Shutting him up is simply wrong. The best way to go about it is to demonstrate why he's wrong, while continuing to allow him to speak; thus making an a** of himself in the public arena. Some of the best research is done by considering alternatives and demonstrating why they are wrong. He's offering alternatives, which have led to more clarification. That's not hurting anyone but helping. Neo-nazi's are horrible evil people, but their vocal presence has helped many of us to know what we need to protect. In Canada they set up tribunals called Human Rights Commissions. Over a period of decades these commissions got out of hand and were pretty much a disgrace. They ended up actually curtailing basic human rights of free speech and penalizing people for their thoughts liken to Orwell's "1984." Most Canadians from various political and social persuasions finally began to understand how destructive they were and reform is now in the works.

So the counter to Wakefield is not sensorring him, but proving him wrong in the public arena. One right we dare not take away is the right to be offensive.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

18 Jul 2011, 1:22 am

PrivateEyes wrote:
A natural consequence for wrong thinking is pubic distain. It shouldn't be government sensorship...
So the counter to Wakefield is not sensorring him, but proving him wrong in the public arena. One right we dare not take away is the right to be offensive.


Of course censorship is highly problematic.

But .. You still have the problem of where the bounds of "wrong thinking" are going to be and who will set them.

Public disdain? But the public has, throughout history, embraced the Oprahs and the Hitlers, and put disdain on those who sounded "different" or whom they did not understand.

Whoever Wakefield may be - HOW will you prove him wrong - in a way that will get the mass of people to say "pah" to him? "Proof" simply does not move masses.



PrivateEyes
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 65
Location: San Bernardino, California USA

18 Jul 2011, 9:22 am

Philologos wrote:
PrivateEyes wrote:
A natural consequence for wrong thinking is pubic distain. It shouldn't be government sensorship...
So the counter to Wakefield is not sensorring him, but proving him wrong in the public arena. One right we dare not take away is the right to be offensive.


Of course censorship is highly problematic.

But .. You still have the problem of where the bounds of "wrong thinking" are going to be and who will set them.

Public disdain? But the public has, throughout history, embraced the Oprahs and the Hitlers, and put disdain on those who sounded "different" or whom they did not understand.

Whoever Wakefield may be - HOW will you prove him wrong - in a way that will get the mass of people to say "pah" to him? "Proof" simply does not move masses.


There are no bounds of wrong thinking. The only kind of speech that we can or should control is when we can clearly show that it harms others. I'm not talking about offending others, but doing actual harm. This is why we have libel laws, laws against copyright infringement and laws protecting the basic security of people. We don't go enacting laws that prevent someone from being able to say what they want to say if it can't clearly be shown to harm.

What's interesting - you note Hitler. Prior to Hitler coming to power Germany had enacted the same kind of human rights commissions they have in Canada. People think that if we don't silence the Neo nazis their thinking will be spread and we'll end up with a tyrant in power. It's just the opposite. If you silence them then their thoughts will be intriguing to a certain class of people and they'll secretively seek it out. If you allow it to be out in the open then you can monitor it. There's no laws against the government monitoring say the internet in the interest of public safety; but to go and arrest people for speaking their mind ultimately leads to the tyranny we fear.

Bottom line is, no matter what laws we have in place we don't control how people think. I think you would benefit from reading Ezra Levant's book: Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights. Levant is an attorney and former publisher of a magazine in Alberta. As the editor he determined that his magazine should publish the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed that stirred up controversy in Europe and among radical Islamic elements worldwide. He made this determination because he thought people ought to know what the controversy was about, and so it was newsworthy. A Canadian Islamic cleric complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and Levant was dragged into a 900 day investigation of his actions, including a demand that he appear before the commission or they would raid his office and home seeking information. None of the commissioners are judges, and none of the actions of the commissions have any true legal precedence. It's totally unconstitutional in Canada and a real conflict. Savant appeared before the commissioner and he filmed the meeting, posting videos on Youtube.
You can watch those several videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIv ... ure=relmfu

The most interesting of these videos is where the commissioner states after one of Lavant's tirades: "Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Well, no he was not apparently entitled to his opinion, and that's the reason why he was there.

As the result of these videos, Canadians were up in arms, because not many people knew that these commissions existed, nor what they were up to. Eventually the commissioner resigned from her job because as she stated: "people are mad at me."

Ultimately the actions of Levant and others has led to Parliamentary reviews of the commissions, and as I stated, reforms are in the works.

The reason Lavant is important is that he discusses all the issues regarding free speech from a constitutional perspective. He really brings all these issues to clarity with arguments that are well researched.

His book details 10 cases that came before the commissions in various Canadian provinces over several decades. One case concerned a young woman in Vancouver who complained to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that her employer McDonalds made her wash her hands too often, and she had a skin condition that made hand washing irritable. The restaurant put her on a one year paid leave of absence so she could get medical help for the condition. They did everything in their power to accommodate her but ultimately they had to stick with their strict hand washing protocol that is mandated by regulation. Since she wasn't willing to comply they had to terminate her, so she went to the BCHRT on a complaint of disability discrimination. McDonalds ended up having to pay her thousands of dollars and the commission mandated that they be lax in their hand washing protocol for people with the same condition. IOW, they were told to break the law in order to accommodate. Furthermore, they were told to risk the health of the public to accommodate one employee. Ridiculous? You bet, but these are the sort of things we face if we start thinking about sensorring people. This case had nothing to do with the original purpose behind commissions of this nature. They were initially set up to help minorities with housing discrimination and other disputes, which is quite a noble endeavor, but ultimately they ended up sensorring public opinion.

One man in Alberta was dragged before the commission because he wrote a letter to the editor of an Alberta newspaper discussing his views on gay marriage. He was a Christian pastor, and in his view gay marriage is wrong on scriptural principles. Some guy in Vancouver (not even in Alberta) who had a particular agenda to seek out homophobes and expose them, got word of the letter and he complained to the Alberta HRC - same commissioner who dealt with Lavant. This man was made to pay again thousands of dollars, and he was ordered to never speak about the issue of homosexuality in a public context for the remainder of his life. And furthermore, he was ordered to write another letter to the newspaper renouncing his views. Can you immagine? Not even courts of law force a convict to renounce his views. Why? Because it's false. You don't change a person's views simply by forcing them to say what you want them to say. The actual newspaper refused to allow the pastor to comply with the order.

The one issue that is being reviewed by parliament is section 13 of the Canadian charter of human rights. That's the section, which gives the HRCs their legitimacy. Part of the problem is the wording; in particular, how they are in conflict with section 2, which states that Canadians have "1) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; C) freedom of peaceful assembly; and D) freedom of association." (Shakedown, pg. 75) As Lavant notes, "Each one of these fundamental freedoms is under attack by Canada's HRCs, which have started to regulate not just what they call discriminatory conduct," but also "discriminatory speech." (pg. 75).

Section 13 is the section on "Hate messages." "The exact wording of Section 13 makes it illegal to say anything over the phone lines or internet that 'is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of [his group status].'" (pg. 75)

"Likely to expose?" This sounds like the pre-crime of the movie "Minority Report."

Kind of arbitrary when you consider that in the 4 decades since the commissions were established all of the complainants were of minority status in race, religion, etc. In other words, there are people in Canada who make all kinds of negative statements against Christians, Jews (a minority, but they have a long history in Canada) e&. But the commissions have focused primarily on cases of speech discrimination against in particular gays and Muslims. And since Lavant came along, no person brought before the commissions has ever won their case. That's right, Lavant won because he had the ability to fight. Most do not. Most are poor people dragged before the commissions, and they are not appointed an attorney. They are responsible for their own expenses, while the complainant does not have to pay anything.

It's these kinds of issues that cause me to be cautious about sensorring public opinion. Justice is not really done but for a focused few. So it ends up being entirely unfair and arbitrary. If the government set out to arrest everyone who had an opinion contrary to political correctness, most of us would be in jail right now.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

18 Jul 2011, 12:50 pm

Raptor wrote:
I've held security clearances so I know a little.
If you are investigated and granted a clearance you sign up to the the agreement that you will not disclose that which is classified to those without a need to know, PERIOD.
It's pretty simple after that because because you are following a policy that will be well defined to you.


So far as this applies to public servants and contractors, all well and good. It is a condition of my employment that I hold a security clearance, and I am compliant with the limitations imposed upon me as a result.

Quote:
If it's part of a secret document and the page is stamped "SECRET" top and bottom then that's all you need to know, irregardless of "over-classification" or whatever.
If your moral values can't abide by what that agency has deemed classified then kindly resign your clearance but you can never disclose what you've been entrusted with as long as it is classified.


I don't disagree. As a public servant I would never take it upon myself to substitute my judgement for that of the person who has classified material. Which is why I insist that in a free and democratic society there must be:

1) A free press
2) A meaningful system of access to information, including disclosure of the fact that information has been withheld, and on what grounds
3) An agency independent of government that has the authority to declassify that which ought never to have been classified in the first place.

Quote:
I won't disagree that some things are done immorally under the cloak of national security although I've never had access to anything like that. I will say that control of certain government information, especially national security related, is still critically essential to the security of that nation.


Which is why, of course, I distinguish between that which should properly be classified and that which should not.

But to give government the power to define "state secret" with neither oversight nor review is to invite government to run roughshod over the democratic freedoms of its citizens.


_________________
--James


gingerpickles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 515
Location: USA

22 Oct 2020, 10:35 pm

you_are_what_you_is wrote:
Nothing from that list. I'm pretty much an absolutist on free speech.

.
Same here. The constitution covers HARM.. If libel or slander does HARM or direct harm to a person and or place. It is harm.
I give 6 Fks and a rats ass what someone call me on the net or from across the street. Can it make me angry ? sure. But why do i care, If it is true I can embrace it and if not they can fk off. Unless it gets me fired from my job, attacked in the street or vandalized at night.. whateva. Specially on words.
Revealing state secrets is pretty much it since a country has to retain some sovereignty, if proven to harm the nation.
But the burden is on tht US prosecuting. If it is revealing corruption, it is not sold to an enemy but given to the people who are the bosses.
I didn't raise my hand to protect SOME people. I feel as much for the gay couple across my street who put up Feel the Bern signs as I do the snarky neonazi guy next door to heckle them from across the street.(former neighbors). But if one crosses the street to tresspass and vandalize or worse even threaten? I will defend the person attacked.
I live in a literal village presently. Next door a person serious who is voting for Vermin Supreme because she wants a free pony I forget the black guys around here are black because they are just fellow ranchers and rednecks here in podunk. Specially Jon that has Betsy Ross and Molon Labe flags flying from his jacked up 4x4 while drinking his DosEquis before a cattle sale. Really the only "unliked" class are the methheads that wander up from the city on occasion.
I think no expression should be banned as long as it stay in their personal space. Anyway it helps sort out the people you need not waste time if they are unfiltered rather them think it and secretly sink you


_________________
FFFFF Captchas.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

22 Oct 2020, 11:50 pm

Libel and slander is already criminal. You can sue someone for it if it has caused you damage eg. your job, your home, it has caused you trauma so you needed to go to a therapist because people believed those lies about you and now you have PTSD and are unstable, it has simply destroyed you as a person.

That other person on the other hand is gonna have to prove what they said about you was true if they want to win or prove they didn't cause you any damage.


Hypothetical situation here. I claim my friend is a pedophile because he is always hanging out with kids. People believe me and it costs him relationships with other people and his neighbors and no one wants to hire him nor interact with him, he is facing harassment from others now and can't even leave his house. He can sue me for slander. Pedophilia accusation is a serious thing to accuse someone about. This is not taken lightly nor taken as a grain of salt, this is serious. So yes he can sue me for this if it has caused him this much damage because people took my opinion as the truth.

I also found out you can still sue someone for slander even if what they said about you was true but if they do not have proof, you can still sue them if it had caused you damage to your rep. That is why we all use fake names when we talk about someone online. Even I have given my ex a fake name so he can't sue me for any slander and I have not mentioned what job he did when we were together. Even if I did say his name, he still can't sue me for slander if it didn't cause him any damage unless him being so depressed and butt hurt counts it made him dysfunctional to function in life now.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

23 Oct 2020, 5:02 am

I hope that the above two posters are aware that they are replying to statements made NINE years ago.

Please folks...be aware of the dates on those "related topics" threads that appear at the bottom of page before you revive them.

According to Emily Post "it's ok to necro a thread, but you must use proper etiquette , and state that you know that it's an old thread, but that you think that it is still a relevant topic".

Okay...Emily Post never really said that. But if she had lived in the day of social media she probably WOULD have that. :D



Last edited by naturalplastic on 23 Oct 2020, 5:21 am, edited 2 times in total.