Hate speech laws

Post Reply New Topic

Best not to feed the trolls.

The only valid way to obtain any authentic type of knowledge is via observation and testing of hypotheses by use of the scientific method, i.e. positivism or specifically Popperian falsificationism. If a hypothesis cannot be tested, it cannot be connected with reality and cannot be known to be true. If explanations are only subjective and cannot be objective, there cannot be any science.

That is simply not true, not about Sweden, and probably not in any other country in Europe either.

as long as it does not incite violence or vilify any person or their belief, and as long as it is not slanderous, then one can say what they like in australia (i think).

the facet of society that imposes sanctions and penalties upon what one has to say is mainly the "social network". social networks are potentially much more worriesome than are legal concerns. there is no careful consideration of all aspects of matters pertaining to yourself when you are being appraised by the social network.

social networks can tighten into lynch mobs if the boss sheep decides to jump in a particular direction.

i am not allowed to say what i think because most people would dislike me for it and make life hard for me if i bulldozed my point through their bollards.

i can listen to them but they can not listen to me, so i feel twice as involved as them i guess with the topic.

it will soon be socially illegal to say "i am not gay" if things keep progressing on this course.

one has to retain an independent voice i would think (except in horrific times like the second world war if one was a jew in dresden).

the world is just as tightly socially controlled by little known forces as it was throughout most of history, and the sentiments of the general public seem all to be modified by immersion into a global standard of behavior which seems to be designed by marketers.

the world sails past my place every day, and i just look at it through the window.

I am a liberal and a feminist and therefore bristle at his remarks, but I don't think he should be forbidden to run nor do I think he should not be legally allowed to say such things on public record. I think he is a good example of the validity of worrying about slippery slope in hate speech laws. He didn't actually express any hate towards women as a group. He expressed an incorrect assumption. It is an incorrect assumption that could be used to justify government policies that oppress women (for example, if a woman could not press charges against a rapist if the rape resulted in her pregnancy- as a theoretical possibility of where that could go). But it could only be called Hate Speech under the most frighteningly relaxed definition of Hate Speech.

Do you really want to criminalize ignorant opinions?

This is why I join thewhiterabbit in wanting to defend the right of even the Westboro Baptist Church's right to say very hateful things about gay people in public. They are undeniably offensive and hateful, but protecting their right to say these things in public acts as a defense for us all.

edited to add artcile about the anti-Islamic youtube video

http://mashable.com/2012/09/15/youtube-white-house/

this youtube video is even more of a test than the Westboro Baptist Church. I hope we as a nation can stand strong and not cave to pressure. This is our biggest test yet.

Last edited by Janissy on 18 Sep 2012, 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Nor should it be. He was voted in by people who want him as their elected representative. He should not be taken away from the people who voted for him just because he said something which is ignorant. He committed no crime. He's just ignorant. If the people who voted for him decide they never will vote for him again, that will be great. But party leaders shouldn't get the right to remove from office anybody who embarrasses them with ignorance.

No, it won't.

It may be 'socially illegal' in some circles to say '"I am not gay, thank god, because gays are reprehensible creatures, lower than vermin" at some point, but to simply say "I am not gay" wouldn't be so. Though if you blurted it out in mid conversation, people might think you odd. If someone wants to go the 'reprehensible vermin' route, they can just find some bigots to hang around with. There's lots around.

There's a certain thinking that has it being told you're being racist or sexist or anti-gay or whatnot is censorship. It isn't.

While (I assume) all libertarians are adamantly in favour of free speech, it does not follow from this that all who are adamantly in favour of free speech are libertarians.



But if the voters voted for the candidate, and not the party, then what? ...And what about independent candidates?



Maybe I am missing something here... How can we go from a statement about the value of freedom -> statement about the scientific content of the profession of the person making a statement about the value of freedom -> statement about the scientific content of the statement about the scientific content of the profession of the person making a statement about the value of freedom -> reply to statement about the scientific content of the statement about the scientific content of profession of the person making a statement about the value of freedom... and arriving at any meaningful conclusion on whether freedom is overrated or not?

Last time I checked neither sociology nor physics have produced any means of assigning any objective truth value to moral statements...

Except, of course, if the discussion about freedom is about *these* freedoms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of ... tistics%29

Actually, it's perfectly possible to arrive at an ethical system using a similar methodology. The value of freedom can be seen empirically. Look up Sam Harris's "The moral landscape":

http://www.worldcat.org/title/moral-landscape-how-science-can-determine-human-values/oclc/535493357

That is why I am not a liberal. Both liberalism (progressivism) and conservatism focus on freedom (liberty). As a leftist, I am more interested in social justice.

IMO, what he said should be a crime.

That is true. I do not know your views. However, WrongPlanet is dominated by libertarians and quasi-libertarians.

No. It. Can. Not. While I don't hold as rigid beliefs on the nature of science as Ruveyn, the work of Harris still lacks any scientific basis.

I won't expose Harris' greatest flaw, but I will leave behind a clue question: "Why is the morality of the human race more true than any other morality?".

No problem. *I* don't even know my views.

What other morality? Let me first point out that if you are trying to compare human morality with that of other animals like what William Lane Craig did in his debate with Sam Harris, then you are almost certainly committing the logical fallacy of making inconsistent comparisons. For example, you cannot say compare a lion that kills zebra for food to a human committing murder (like what William Lane Craig did), unless you are also willing to call humans slaughtering cows in abattoirs murder, otherwise you are using different standards of comparison for humans and other animals giving a false analogy. Secondly, the question is meaningless since the entire concept of morality does not make sense outside the context of living within a society, whereas you are assuming there is such a thing as an objective morality outside of that context.

Look, start with the axiom that none of us want to suffer and then work your way up from there, where we can determine what causes suffering and what can be done to reduce or eliminate it. What is the first thing restricted in every single tyranny where human rights are violated? Freedom. Information about their oppression and human rights abuses is censored in order retain power, which is why freedom of speech is important. That is an empirical fact.

Last edited by Jono on 19 Sep 2012, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

I would disagree there, I feel that it is possible to have morality without society, of course you said objective morality, but so much of morality is open to opinion there's the question of wether objective morality even exists within society.

I feel that hypocrisy is a universal evil, but that means objective morality is possible without society.