Bill to make attacks on Trump supporters a Hate Crime

Page 15 of 15 [ 225 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

uncommondenominator
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 356

24 Jun 2020, 9:04 am

Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I'm not sure someone who had their character\intellect questioned (throught the unsubstantiated claim), or whose opponent made the claim in order to try and extricate themselves from a debate in which they were losing would consider "triggering" to be an accurate description.

The nature of a discussion does not necessarily have to be adversarial in a classic legal sense. In many intellectual disciplines colleagues can (and are encouraged) to question the veracity of a claim. So in science this happens through the principle of peer review. In law and back in the old days when scientific discoveries were debated in forums those making the claims would be subject to criticism of their theory but also subject to attack and ridicule of their person but had the opportunity to defend their position. A classic example was Sigmund Freud whose theories of psychoanalysis were roundly disputed by his medical colleagues and made him open to questions of impropriety on his part and open ridicule in public debates with his medical peers. Both attacks on the veracity of the claims as well as on the person was traditionally permissible.

Brictoria wrote:
Calling someone "ignorant" in those cases would be more likely to be considered a disrespectful act, both to the target of the claim, and to other participants in the debate, rather than a "triggering" act.


The triggering act is in the modern sense where one is permitted to defend their position based on legal defense that its an attack on their reputation or slanderous. As to whether calling somebody "ignorant" breaches any such legal requirements for slander, libel or causing harm (hate speech?) is something left for a legal expert to provide supporting evidence.

While we have a few scientists on WP, as far as I know there are no lawyers here.


Hello. Business major versed in constitutional and federal law, state and local law, and business law.

In order to meet the requirements for libel (written) / slander (verbal), the statement has to be made in bad faith (known to be false), AND has to cause a substantive loss of reputation. So, if someone says "I think you are stupid", first you'd have to prove they don't actually believe the claim. That's tricky at best, particularly if they do believe it to be true. The statement "I think you are an idiot" cannot be slanderous or libelous as stated, if the individual actually believes it. IF by some chance you can prove that, then you have to show how their comment caused loss of reputation. What *might* or *could have* happen doesn't count. Having your personal feelings hurt doesn't count. The same people saying the same thing, doesn't count. From a legal point of view, even if everyone on the entire forum turned against you and ran you off, as long as that was the only consequence, it still hasn't me the legal requirements to meet a slander or libel suit. If you went to apply for a job, and they go, "hey, I know that name, aren't you that person from wrongplanet, I heard you're a (something) so I'm not going to hire you", THEN you might have a basis for a slander or libel case. "Getting kicked off the site and feeling too depressed to get a job" is not a direct consequence, that's an indirect consequence. Doesn't count.

Also, you cannot legally protect property with lethal force. Property is not the same category as human life. Dumping them both under the umbrella of "violence" is disingenuous and misleading at best. Unfortunately, there are many people who *are* more concerned with their own property than they are the lives of others.

It must take some rather tiring mental gymnastics to decide that it's not the racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or general lack of concern for the lives of others that people don't like, but instead conclude that people must simply "hate trump supporters" for totally no reason.


As I understand it, saying "<insert name> is an idiot" is classed as a statement of "fact", whereas saying "I think <insert name> is an idiot" is an opinion, with these being treated differently with regards to the law.

With a statement of fact, the burden of proof is on the accuser to be able to support their claim, with an inability to do so indicating "bad faith".


That's whats known as "splitting hairs".


Isn't that expected behaviour in lawyers :lol:

uncommondenominator wrote:
Even the direct statement "he is an idiot" could be construed as an opinion, if stated as a fact of belief. In which case the burden proof goes back to the accused to prove that the person meant it as a statement of fact and not a statement of opinion. It's a legally gray area that's already been well addressed in the courts. Even then, the second requirement still has to be met. Loss of reputation. BOTH are necessary for it to be libel or slander. Not one-or-the-other.


In replying to information which had been presented with a responce "<insert name> is an idiot", rather than refuting the information presented, the only purpose that would appear to be served would be to cause a loss of reputation, and so devalue the information that had been previously conveyed. It certainly doesn't add any clarity to the debate, nor further any participants knowledge regarding the subject being debated.


It's only expected of lawyers if you're prejudiced against lawyers. Thank you for the demonstration of institutionalized bias. Cos "everyone knows lawyers are dishonest", right? That's the implication, right? Please, correct me if you meant something else.


It must be a cultural difference...In Australia (and on most international forums I have used), the addition of a " :lol: " (or similar) is used to indicate a joke, or that something is not meant to be taken seriously.

My appologies, if you believed that it was meant otherwise.


"It was just a joke" is one of the oldest forms of backpedaling there is. "It was just a joke" that also happened to perpetuate a negative stereotype. The fact that you felt it was ok to engage in negative stereotyping, even as "a joke", illustrates how socially acceptable bias works. Its ok to dehumanize or insult, as long as it's "a joke". So you you were "just kidding", huh? Then why did you say it? I knew quite well it was meant "as a joke". That doesn't make the point any less valid. "It was just a joke, I don't actually believe that!" You believed it enough to make a joke about it, knowing other people would get the inference. Or are you saying you're being disingenuous and just hurl stereotypes to be "funny"?

Sarcasm alert: The following statement is sarcasm to make a point.

But I suppose I should expect dishonest behavior from a continent full of criminals :lol: LAWZ just kidding! Get it? Itsa joke, cos Australia used to be a prison colony, so calling people from australia "criminals" is funny, right? It's just a joke, right?

No, it's not funny, and I only said it to make a point. It's a terrible joke, cos joke or no, if people start to believe it, people start to treat people like they deserve it. Like the spongebob episode where spongebob keeps making dumb squirrel jokes, so everyone starts treating sandy like she is actually dumb. It may be "just a joke" to the people it doesn't affect, but there are people it does affect, and to them, it's usually not funny.

"Just a joke" is usually the initial step used to normalize the mistreatment of a group or individual.


Whilst I can almost understand your confected outrage, the comment was made based on one of the reasons given to me by a family friend (retired magistrate), who suggested, based on my habit of splitting hairs, along with my memory (he based that on the fact I had a very good memory for things related to my then "special interest") that I should consider studying law at university (I ended up doing Science instead, but still think that it could be interesting to go back and do law as well, now).

I'll also note that the people in the legal departments at 2 of the companies which I have worked at (Including Chief Legal Officer at my current job) are some of the first to laugh at jokes based on the"stereotypes" of which you complain, and would happily add their own into a conversation.

However I believe the insinuation that the people who live in a given country are all criminals comes very close to hitting the "racism" definition, whether you try to hide it behind a "sarcasm" note or not (as you yourself noted, it is pedalling a negative stereotype, which you must have believed, otherwise why post it).


So me pointing out your crappy behavior is "fake outrage"? Ok :roll:

So you claim you know a few people who are ok with lawyer jokes, cool, that means everyone has to be ok with them? Not how that works.

Nice try at swinging the pendulum back at me, but I clearly stated that I do not believe the statement I made, and only made it to make a point, and that I didn't think it was funny. You OTOH made the joke, and didn't start backpedaling until AFTER you got called out om, it, and even then just said "its a joke" but never actually retracted the statement. I'm not trying to "hide behind sarcasm" cos I don't believe the comment in the first place, admitted it was inappropriate, and established that I don't believe it, and that it's wrong. I didn't say it to "be funny". I said it to illustrate a point. You made your joke under the pretense of "it's just a joke". I wasn't making a joke, I was making a POINT, in which I acknowledged BOTH comments as bad taste. Telling me that "I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't believe it" doesn't hold water if I explicitly point out that I don't believe the comment, and am only making it to illustrate a parallel. What I believed, and said I believed, was that BOTH make bad "jokes". You can try all you want to make them the same thing, but they're really not. Intentionally using a stereotype that one acknowledges is a stereotype, and wrong, to illustrate why stereotyping is wrong, is NOT the same thing as "peddling" stereotypes.

Insofar as your lawyer joke, you may have said you were kidding, but you haven't said you think it's untrue. Whereas in my case, I made it clear that I do not believe the statement, and acknowledge it was an inappropriate statement to make, and only made it to hold it up to your "joke" for comparison. Besides, I know plenty of Aussies who make jokes about that, surely that means it's ok, right?

Lemme help you. No, it doesn't. It's not something I believe, and it's not something that I think is ok to joke about. But people only grasp certain ideas when they hit close to home. I figured if I took your format, and replaced "lawyer" with something that related to you, it might make more sense to you. Your reaction to my comment tells me I was right. It suddenly became relevant, to you personally, and THAT'S when it suddenly stopped being ok. It was fine to joke about lawyers, but as soon as it got to australians, "that's not funny!" and you took a clearly disingenuous comment quite seriously. It's always "just a joke" until the joke is about you.

Anyways, I believe you were saying something funny and ironic about "fake outrage"...