Page 2 of 12 First 123456 ... Last
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    24,897
    Style
    Chinese Boxing
    Quote Originally Posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    Well, my point is they won't be able to, as your examples above show.

    Well I guess my point of this thread is to argue the point to be better prepared if it does happen. I mean the guy in the UK is still in court fighting this. I just debated one of my members for nearly an hour on the subject to get a focus on the matter.

  2. #12
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,515
    Style
    Jits
    Would you accept a definition of "hate speech" made by democratically elected lawmakers and interpreted by courts? Like, for instance the definition of "murder" or the definition of "robbery"?

  3. #13
    Christmas Spirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    16,933
    Style
    all things in Moderation
    I would totally sign a paper saying death threats and/or promoting the harm of any broad ethnic or religious group as "hate speech" but I am pretty sure that isn't their goal ...
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994

    "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
    ---Jean-Paul Sartre

  4. #14
    ChenPengFi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    7,765
    Style
    Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    Would you accept a definition of "hate speech" made by democratically elected lawmakers and interpreted by courts? Like, for instance the definition of "murder" or the definition of "robbery"?

    Those are "objectively definable" acts, and we don't have a constitutional right to act freely, so probably not.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    24,897
    Style
    Chinese Boxing
    Quote Originally Posted by BackFistMonkey View Post
    I would totally sign a paper saying death threats and/or promoting the harm of any broad ethnic or religious group as "hate speech" but I am pretty sure that isn't their goal ...
    Actually I think that was their goal.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    24,897
    Style
    Chinese Boxing
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    Would you accept a definition of "hate speech" made by democratically elected lawmakers and interpreted by courts? Like, for instance the definition of "murder" or the definition of "robbery"?
    No, because I believe in free speech.

  7. #17
    Christmas Spirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    16,933
    Style
    all things in Moderation
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Supreme View Post
    Actually I think that was their goal.
    Well calling for violence in general is already not protected speech and well defined.

    I am pretty sure they are shooting more for the "******" and "******" flavored examples.
    Last edited by Christmas Spirit; 2/17/2018 2:54pm at . Reason: clarity
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994

    "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
    ---Jean-Paul Sartre

  8. #18
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,515
    Style
    Jits
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Supreme View Post
    No, because I believe in free speech.
    So you believe (what follows is what one dude around here did, but slighty adapted to this thread, and got charged for that) your daughter should find completely fine to receive pics of raped and murdered filipino women with the caption "You're next"?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    24,897
    Style
    Chinese Boxing
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    So you believe (what follows is what one dude around here did, but slighty adapted to this thread, and got charged for that) your daughter should find completely fine to receive pics of raped and murdered filipino women with the caption "You're next"?
    Yeah, I don't call that hate speech. I call that threats of violence. It's irrelevant the murdered bodies are of Filipino, it's irrelevant that they are women. So yes, not hate speech.

  10. #20
    Hannukah Hairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    3,250
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    So you believe (what follows is what one dude around here did, but slighty adapted to this thread, and got charged for that) your daughter should find completely fine to receive pics of raped and murdered filipino women with the caption "You're next"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Supreme View Post
    Yeah, I don't call that hate speech. I call that threats of violence. It's irrelevant the murdered bodies are of Filipino, it's irrelevant that they are women. So yes, not hate speech.
    There has to be a distinction between unpleasant speech, and things such as threats or incitement.

    If a guy stands on a street corner and shouts, "I hate kikes, you all should hate kikes". Well screw that dude, and the horse he rode in on, but it is protected speech, he can say it.
    If a guy stands on a street corner and shouts, "Come help me kill kikes, and burn down their synagogue this Friday." Well screw that dude, that is incitement to violence and not protected.
    If a guy shouts in my face, "I hate you because you are a kike." Protected speech, no matter how it makes me feel.
    If a guy shouts in my face, "I'm gonna kill you kike". That is a death threat, it is illegal, and my reactions will be based on local legalities.
    Don't rely on theory if your life is at stake.

    "But now that you've anointed him as truthsayer, you'll be complicit with what happens when the next Jew comes here and is lambasted by an ultrasecular Rabbi" -W.Rabbit/Pship/Emily Dickinson/Earth Dragon/Self Proclaimed Editor Extraordinaire

Page 2 of 12 First 123456 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in