Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Please don't just post links. Especially not links to a GIANT wall of text NOBODY is going to read anyway. If you want to make a point, then please make that point. Just hinting at it by posting a naked link is lazy and shows a lack of interest in participating in the discussion on your part.
Sigvatr wrote: Please don't just post links. Especially not links to a GIANT wall of text NOBODY is going to read anyway. If you want to make a point, then please make that point. Just hinting at it by posting a naked link is lazy and shows a lack of interest in participating in the discussion on your part.
it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
And posting such a link with no context and no attempt to actually participate in the discussion serves no useful purpose for furthering said discussion.
Asterios wrote: it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
And posting such a link with no context and no attempt to actually participate in the discussion serves no useful purpose for furthering said discussion.
and yet I've seen many a posts do the same thing and yet they do not get spotlighted like this, if this is how a mod will treat me then I've got better places to be then here, adios amigos.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: ok for starters, how would you feel if in a private conversation your having with someone you say something that is disparaging about someone else, then your friend tells your boss and he fires you?
I wouldn't like that, but I don't see what that has to do with freedom of speech.
furthermore what do you think free speech is all about?
The government not being able to restrict speech, other than in exceptional circumstances (death threats, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc).
I'm thinking you don't quite grasp what free speech is all about.
No, you just keep confusing "freedom of speech" with "I should be able to say whatever I want and nobody should be able to criticize me for it". Freedom of speech ONLY applies to the government, private citizens are free to react however they like (within legal limits) to your speech. And those individuals choosing to react in a way that you don't like doesn't mean that your rights have been violated.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I wouldn't like that, but I don't see what that has to do with freedom of speech.
He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
Since we'ere talking FoS, I should say, that while I don't agree with the guy personally, in that situation, I don't think anything should have been able to be done to him. If people felt that strongly about what he said, let the players quit and walk out on their contracts (they can't join another team till their contract is up), let the fans quit coming to the games. His being forced to sell the team, IMO, violates that freedom of speech (IIRC, didn't a local court side with the NBA and allow them to force the selling?), and he should be free to say what he wants. However, when he says some stuff like that and its made public, the "appropriate" response should be for those who really are upset about it to react in their own appropriate ways (again, stop working and stop showing up to games... he's a rich dude, the only real thing that's going to hurt him, is if you financially hurt him)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
I know, he referred to it explicitly in a previous post. I'm just trying to get him to clarify how exactly it's a freedom of speech issue.
Since we'ere talking FoS, I should say, that while I don't agree with the guy personally, in that situation, I don't think anything should have been able to be done to him. If people felt that strongly about what he said, let the players quit and walk out on their contracts (they can't join another team till their contract is up), let the fans quit coming to the games.
Why should the NBA take that loss? They're a business, and allowing him to remain an owner wasn't in their best interest. Remember, a team isn't entirely your own property like a house or car, you have to sign contracts that limit what you can do with the team and what rules you have to follow before you buy it. And your continued ownership depends on you following those rules. If you don't want to obey the league's rules then don't buy a team.
(IIRC, didn't a local court side with the NBA and allow them to force the selling?)
That doesn't necessarily make it a freedom of speech issue. I seriously doubt any court ruled that he must sell the team because of what he said (if they had it would certainly be appealed and overturned). The only thing a court could rule on would be interpreting the NBA's ownership agreements and whether or not they allow the NBA to force the sale. That's an issue of contract law, not freedom of speech.
and he should be free to say what he wants.
But he is, and the government did not do anything to punish him for it. This is the equivalent of kicking a guest out of your home because they won't stop making racist rants about all of your friends.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/14 23:52:56
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
There are situations in which freedom of speech doesn't apply. Mods on forums, for example, have the ability to censor speech at will because this is a private discussion board rather than a public venue. You can say whatever you want, you just won't be able to do it on these forums if it's against the rules. Similarly, whats-his-name can make all the racist comments he wants, the NBA just won't let him stay on as an owner for it.
Asterios wrote: it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
And posting such a link with no context and no attempt to actually participate in the discussion serves no useful purpose for furthering said discussion.
and yet I've seen many a posts do the same thing and yet they do not get spotlighted like this, if this is how a mod will treat me then I've got better places to be then here, adios amigos.
Stay classy, Asterios.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Utterly for it until you reach the point of screaming fire in a theater. But condemning political leaders, slander, satire, criticism, etc should all be legal. I'd rather not ride down the slippery slope of regulating what you can and cannot say, because it leads to nothing good.
I also especially hate the stupidity of nations like Germany that try to ignore and stamp out Nazism and do things like ban Swastikas or other symbols. That simply enables it to be forgotten by the public, meaning they're liable to repeat what happened.
Ignorance is the only true evil to mankind, and the greatest threat to the species.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It's not necessarily a fallacy, but yes, the way most people use it, it is. It's a fallacy when there is no particular reason to think that things will actually slide down said slippery slope.
Say we're talking about allowing a national socialist party to form. There's a new hitler-figure pushing for allowing it, and he's got a very questionable agenda. In that case, you can expect him to keep pushing down that slippery slope until there's a whole new nazi regime. On the other hand, if it's just some random skinheads and there's no way that they're going to be able to garner any meaningful political power, then there's no reason to expect giving them a bit of free speech will suddenly lead to the rise of the fourth reich or whatever and the slippery slope argument becomes invalid.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Freedom of speech can not be 100%, that would degrade everything.
But what I find really weird is the amound of people and even whole nations that ban blasphemy. Everything is blasphemous and to illegalize it would be to illegalize absolutely everything. Furthermore I find it shocking the amount of people thinking blasphemy can not be art or can only be made for provocation's sake. Blasphemy is just as important at keeping theocracy away as political criticism is at keeping dictatorship away.
Most relevant example is with the shootings in Denmark. One side make drawings, other side shoots people. It's absurd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/15 06:30:50
He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
Sterling's ban wasn't really about the comments. The guy is an unmitigated donkey-cave, and the NBA had been trying to get rid of him for a long time; the comments were just a convenient excuse.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I wouldn't like that, but I don't see what that has to do with freedom of speech.
He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
Since we'ere talking FoS, I should say, that while I don't agree with the guy personally, in that situation, I don't think anything should have been able to be done to him. If people felt that strongly about what he said, let the players quit and walk out on their contracts (they can't join another team till their contract is up), let the fans quit coming to the games. His being forced to sell the team, IMO, violates that freedom of speech (IIRC, didn't a local court side with the NBA and allow them to force the selling?), and he should be free to say what he wants. However, when he says some stuff like that and its made public, the "appropriate" response should be for those who really are upset about it to react in their own appropriate ways (again, stop working and stop showing up to games... he's a rich dude, the only real thing that's going to hurt him, is if you financially hurt him)
The government did not force him to sell his team, the focus of private citizens did, and the NBA (which is a privately-owned business) chose to enforce their legal right (and requirement) to do what is best for their bottom-line. There's no FoS violation here.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Why should the NBA take that loss? They're a business, and allowing him to remain an owner wasn't in their best interest. Remember, a team isn't entirely your own property like a house or car, you have to sign contracts that limit what you can do with the team and what rules you have to follow before you buy it. And your continued ownership depends on you following those rules. If you don't want to obey the league's rules then don't buy a team.
That's probably why the NBA fined him 25 million USD for moving the Clippers to LA in 1984. Of course the fine was eventually reduced to 6 million USD due to a 100 million USD counter-suit, but the point stands. And why he almost lost ownership of the team in '82 for essentially refusing to pay players, staff, and creditors until they sued him. A practice he continued throughout his tenure as owner.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/15 07:19:25
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
Why should the NBA take that loss? They're a business, and allowing him to remain an owner wasn't in their best interest. Remember, a team isn't entirely your own property like a house or car, you have to sign contracts that limit what you can do with the team and what rules you have to follow before you buy it. And your continued ownership depends on you following those rules. If you don't want to obey the league's rules then don't buy a team.
That's probably why the NBA fined him 25 million USD for moving the Clippers to LA in 1984. Of course the fine was eventually reduced to 6 million USD due to a 100 million USD counter-suit, but the point stands. And why he almost lost ownership of the team in '82 for essentially refusing to pay players, staff, and creditors until they sued him. A practice he continued throughout his tenure as owner.
The NBA should have moved the team to an at will state and then just told him not to come in the next day, or indeed ever again. Or does that law only work for poor people?
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
What stops a private induvidual charging somebody with this law? Note that in my example the journalist did not live in Russia, and I apologise if it appeared as such. Also, if the law is faulty then appeals won't fix the faulty judgement. And finally, some have argued that when the "slope" can be proven to exist then it can be used in an argument.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
What stops a private induvidual charging somebody with this law? Note that in my example the journalist did not live in Russia, and I apologise if it appeared as such. Also, if the law is faulty then appeals won't fix the faulty judgement. And finally, some have argued that when the "slope" can be proven to exist then it can be used in an argument.
Nothing stops a private individual from charging somebody with the law, that's why courts exist. Again, if we cannot trust the courts to be (at least reasonably) fair and impartial then we're fethed anyway. Further, if the law is faulty then surely the solution would be to fix it, not to simply throw our hands in the air and give up?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
What stops a private induvidual charging somebody with this law? Note that in my example the journalist did not live in Russia, and I apologise if it appeared as such. Also, if the law is faulty then appeals won't fix the faulty judgement. And finally, some have argued that when the "slope" can be proven to exist then it can be used in an argument.
Nothing stops a private individual from charging somebody with the law, that's why courts exist. Again, if we cannot trust the courts to be (at least reasonably) fair and impartial then we're fethed anyway. Further, if the law is faulty then surely the solution would be to fix it, not to simply throw our hands in the air and give up?
>Nothing stops a private individual from charging somebody with the law, that's why courts exist. Again, if we cannot trust the courts to be (at least reasonably) fair and impartial then we're fethed anyway.
This is exactly why laws like this cannot work. The law should be objective, and it should be always same and clear. However, it will not be that if the law is always interpereted by the jugde, as it is so unclear, which will in turn mean that the law will be different for each judge. It will also mean that it is very easy to corrupt, as somebody with influence over the court could use this law to put anybody that opposes him to jail.
> Further, if the law is faulty then surely the solution would be to fix it, not to simply throw our hands in the air and give up?
May I ask you, how would you then define this law and make it work? At the moment it seems, that it is impossible to make laws like that to work, as I have seen no jurisdical system do that.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
We don't have to, but you did. As soon as your reply to a poster from Germany asked what the German for "lesser people" was the comparison was as obvious as it was cliched
And the neckbeard duck guy, he signed a contract, I'm sure somewhere in his contract is a clause where he can not say things that embarrass TLC. His suspension had nothing to do with free speech, but a breach of contract that he voluntarily entered & violated.
I'd bet most companies large enough to have a human services department also has limitations to your FoS in the contract you have to sign for employment.
While some might claim you still have the freedom to say such things and those are just additional consequences. I'd disagree, for you to honor your contract, you are promising not to engage in certain things that would fall under FoS.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
We don't have to, but you did. As soon as your reply to a poster from Germany asked what the German for "lesser people" was the comparison was as obvious as it was cliched
The point is still valid though. Anyone talking about "lesser people" like that, no matter his nationality, is extremely disturbing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
We don't have to, but you did. As soon as your reply to a poster from Germany asked what the German for "lesser people" was the comparison was as obvious as it was cliched
The point is still valid though. Anyone talking about "lesser people" like that, no matter his nationality, is extremely disturbing.
This. It's so hilariously over the line that I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. Anyone calling someone "Untermenschen" would become a pariah almost instantaneously, and yet "lesser people" is apparently entirely OK (and yes, I'm aware that "Untermenschen" is technically "subhuman", same concept).
And now Iron_Captain is agreeing with me, too! What is going on?!
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
>Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door.
It is true that laws have to fill other requirements, however that does not mean that it is not important that laws should have one definition and only one definition, as it tells that it is a good law, and a law that lacks these qualities will be bad, as if the law can have many interperations, then the law is not fair, as the judgement can differ according to the judge's opinion on the people that are charged. Also, your statement that then all laws are worthless is wrong, as all the other laws are very clear on their definitions, and cannot be interpereted. For example, everybody can tell that is something a murder, or not.
>Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
Corruption is illegal in all countries, but that does not mean that there are no corrupt countries.
This. It's so hilariously over the line that I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. Anyone calling someone "Untermenschen" would become a pariah almost instantaneously, and yet "lesser people" is apparently entirely OK (and yes, I'm aware that "Untermenschen" is technically "subhuman", same concept).
And now Iron_Captain is agreeing with me, too! What is going on?!
You not understanding the two terms is going on.
"Untermenschen" refers to people who were born less privileged according to the nazis, i.e. slavs and jews. "Lesser people" as used above was used to describe people openly and offensively acting against free speech, i.e. who actively chose to defy it.
...and let's not even start with the fact that the former is a coined term whereas the latter is an opinionated made-up term.
Can't see the difference? Shame on you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/16 22:46:50
This. It's so hilariously over the line that I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. Anyone calling someone "Untermenschen" would become a pariah almost instantaneously, and yet "lesser people" is apparently entirely OK (and yes, I'm aware that "Untermenschen" is technically "subhuman", same concept).
And now Iron_Captain is agreeing with me, too! What is going on?!
You not understanding the two terms is going on.
"Untermenschen" refers to people who were born less privileged according to the nazis, i.e. slavs and jews. "Lesser people" as used above was used to describe people openly and offensively acting against free speech, i.e. who actively chose to defy it.
...and let's not even start with the fact that the former is a coined term whereas the latter is an opinionated made-up term.
Can't see the difference? Shame on you.
Pray tell, how is labelling people whose opinions on the subject differ from yours as "lesser" conductive to an honest debate?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
You're triviliazing freedom of speech to "having different opinions"? Is freedom of speech, according to you, on the same level as debating your favorite book?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/17 00:26:27
