Dr Fredrick Toben's arrest should alarm us all

Page 8 of 10 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Oct 2008, 1:08 am

Which weapons. fire extinguishers could be interesting,


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

12 Oct 2008, 1:08 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
But I ask you once again how about talk that incites violent acts. As an extreme example 'crystal night' during the Third Reich

Kristallnacht was an organized campaign of violence, not merely some idle threats. When you're killing people, that obviously does not fall under free speech. That falls under something we call "murder."

Quote:
Is it ok for kids to taunt someone with an intellectually or physical disability in school.

No, it's not ok. But a law against it wouldn't do anything anyways. Now you're trying to play to Aspie sympathies with the bully card.

Quote:
Telling them its wrong wont stop it and quite often leads to the suicide of the tormented. Is banning this an unacceptable attack on the right to free speech, after all its only 'sticks and stones ........'

It already is banned as a matter of school policy. Doesn't have any impact on it, though- I would know, I've been through that before and don't particularly want to revisit the mental demons that still lurk from those dark years in my life. This is WP, I'm sure almost all of us have gone through that particular hell at some point in our lives. I've yet to hear of any possible method of dealing with bullies, and the only thing I was ever able to find was to wait it out- life sucked for several years, but eventually the bullying ended. While it was going on, it did not seem that it would.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Oct 2008, 1:14 am

claire333 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Then again, I think there ought to be more legal ways to kill people, like, I think duels should be legal.
:lol: Ahhh...like choose your weapon, and twenty paces, and all that jazz?

Thanks. I needed the laugh before I hit the hay. You guys make me think too much.

Hey, there are some people I'd duel.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Oct 2008, 1:15 am

There are a couple of points worth considering.

If nasty opinions are regarded generally as ineffective of actually causing anybody harm aside from personal offense (which should not be considered a crime as it should be expected that this is in an unclassifiable area) then why not tolerate it as a minority opinion of someone probably not quite sane? If the same statements are in danger of arousing real violence amongst a dangerous minority and might cause very bad consequences then they should be prevented.

That the holocaust happened is a matter of history agreed upon my a majority of historians so denying it may offend people who were badly treated but I cannot see it as anything criminal. But if people are to be extradited to areas where extreme punishment is legal out of areas where it is not, how long will it be before Saudi Arabia demands custody of people denying Muslim dogma so that they can be tortured or executed? This is a very slippery slope that might require refugees seeking sanction from police states are denied their relief. National barriers can sometimes be the only thing safeguarding diverse opinions and the spread of police powers across the barriers could be a very dangerous thing.

In this site the substitution of asterisks for vowels in what are considered offensive speech seems to me to be not only childish but totally ineffective since no one is deceived or puzzled by the substitution. I am not offended by so-called offensive speech and would prefer it to be permitted as forceful intensifiers as it is normally accepted in most films and adult entertainment and a good deal of normal conversation, even by children. Restricting its use only makes it more powerful.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Oct 2008, 1:27 am

Orwell wrote:
No, it's not ok. But a law against it wouldn't do anything anyways. Now you're trying to play to Aspie sympathies with the bully card.


No, I am just pointing out how in-valid your sticks and stones metaphor is. Bullying and vilifying is a form of free speech that I for one would ban to the point of removing the perpetrators from a 'normal' school environment.

You still have not given your opinion as to the right of someone to deliberately incite violence.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

12 Oct 2008, 1:30 am

I'm really unsure about how I feel about the "incitement of violence" laws. I mean, if someone says "My brethren, I call upon ye to call all people who be [insert random group here]" and people do, why should the speaker be responsible? He's not controlling his audience's actions. But at the same time, I can see how it could be construed as a threat... Damn semantics!



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Oct 2008, 1:40 am

Orwell wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
What are your views on behaviour/speech that is a deliberate attempt to incite violence and hatred

As far as violence, that should be punished. But trying to ban "hate speech" as you call it only makes martyrs out of bigots. If you persecute someone, you are in a way conceding a loss to them. You can not defeat them in the open, so you must use brute force to silence them. It is weak and cowardly.


SILENCE!



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Oct 2008, 2:08 am

slowmutant wrote:
Orwell wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
What are your views on behaviour/speech that is a deliberate attempt to incite violence and hatred

As far as violence, that should be punished. But trying to ban "hate speech" as you call it only makes martyrs out of bigots. If you persecute someone, you are in a way conceding a loss to them. You can not defeat them in the open, so you must use brute force to silence them. It is weak and cowardly.


SILENCE!


?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Oct 2008, 2:14 am

Cyanide wrote:
I'm really unsure about how I feel about the "incitement of violence" laws. I mean, if someone says "My brethren, I call upon ye to call all people who be [insert random group here]" and people do, why should the speaker be responsible? He's not controlling his audience's actions. But at the same time, I can see how it could be construed as a threat... Damn semantics!


To assume that speech is not a factor in releasing or directing action is to assume that speech is impotent in social activity, something that is obviously false. It's a problem as to when or whether speech must be regulated in maintaining a civilized society with minimum restrictions since the same speech in different circumstances has different effects. Crying "Fire!" at a shooting range is quite different from the same word in a crowded theater.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Oct 2008, 2:49 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
I suppose they are saying that because it was published on the internet it therefore violated rules in Germany. Laws on internet publications are really hard, I mean say child pornography is legal in the country from where the material was originally posted, does the government in a different country have any jurisdiction over the OP when the material is viewed illegally in their country, and should they be able to extradite the offending poster on this basis.

In other words is it the same as bringing hard copies of the material into the country.

* I am using child porn as an example because it is obviously wrong

The issue I see with that, is that there is no reason to assume that something on the internet must obey the laws of every country with internet access. Now, perhaps an internet law does not perfectly exist, however, I think that even with child pornography, it would be best/necessary to have a pre-existing international agreement with the nation of origin of the poster. That being said, I think the crime of child pornography is the means of acquisition, if there were some means of creating virtual children, then I might not see as much of an issue with it(the issue then really would just be viewers slipping into actual pedophilia).


Are you making excuses for the makers and purveyors of kiddie porn? Please don't.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Oct 2008, 3:07 am

slowmutant wrote:
Are you making excuses for the makers and purveyors of kiddie porn? Please don't.


Whats wrong with kiddie porn. I love kiddie porn real live kiddie sex is better but in a drought porn is a good standby. :lol:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Oct 2008, 3:10 am

Before you take offence obviously I am joking. Slowmutant please read the whole text and understand it before replying to it. There is even an asterisk explaining why I used child porn as an example :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Oct 2008, 3:20 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Are you making excuses for the makers and purveyors of kiddie porn? Please don't.


Whats wrong with kiddie porn. I love kiddie porn real live kiddie sex is better but in a drought porn is a good standby. :lol:


I was talking to AG, actually. Child pornography is something that should be aggressively eliminated. No halfway measures, no rationalizations, no kind of apologist bullshit is acceptable in this case. If gaybashing is hateful, imagine how much worse child pornography is.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Oct 2008, 3:36 am

Ooops sorry. He does raise an interesting point though. Is child porn wrong because of the effect it has on children. If so virtual child porn ....? personally I agree with you SM viewing this sort of material damages the viewer as well. I also do not agree with manga comics that have rape and sexual humiliation as their theme. And child porn whether real or virtual is damaging.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

12 Oct 2008, 10:04 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Orwell wrote:
No, it's not ok. But a law against it wouldn't do anything anyways. Now you're trying to play to Aspie sympathies with the bully card.


No, I am just pointing out how in-valid your sticks and stones metaphor is. Bullying and vilifying is a form of free speech that I for one would ban to the point of removing the perpetrators from a 'normal' school environment.

Uh huh. Look, I'm just going to assume you had to deal with that type of s**t too. If it is still relatively fresh in your memory, you know that bullying can not and will not be stopped from above. Schools already have rules against that type of abuse, but they are unenforceable even if those in charge were willing to enforce them. Bullies can be subtle enough that teachers don't notice they're breaking the rules. Bullying is a problem I don't know how to solve, but I do know that appealing to anyone in authority to deal with it is the height of futility.

Quote:
You still have not given your opinion as to the right of someone to deliberately incite violence.

Sorry, hadn't gotten a chance to reply yet. Openly calling for assassinations, or for a campaign of violence against a given group, could be considered plotting and seen as distinct from free speech. However, it's important to remember that almost all threats are simply hot air.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

12 Oct 2008, 11:00 am

Edit: Meh...nevermind.