I see a lot of things in my day to day life, on these forums or off, where people call someone things like "nigger, faggot, chink, etc." Often when someone tries to say anything about and calls them out for it, they tote out the First Amendment and say that they're in their rights to do so. Now, I believe in Free Speech as a political ideal, when in a political situation, you're free to your opinion and you have the right to say so. For example, The KKK has the right to organize and believe whites are superior. They do not have the right to walk up to a African-American man on the street and call him a nigger. That is at worst, a hate crime, and at the least, harassment. In a social circle however, there are already laws about things you can't say. You can't shout "fire" in a theater, you can't shout "fuck" to a cop, and you can't verbally abuse someone. Free speech is meant to protect political ideals, not the right to be a dick to people and not be punished.
This is entirely situational, telling a cop to go fuck himself is fine if said cop deserves it. If he's being harsh and unfair then by all means tell him he can shove his badge up his ass. As for the word nigger http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger "a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. " Not always offensive. Had to look up "disenfranchise" which means "to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote. " If someone loses their citizenship they are a nigger and that's non-offensive. Besides that word appears in comedy a lot. Ever listen to Kat Williams? You get rid of that word you get rid of 1/3rd of his act. The fact is words are situational so unless you define a law for every possible situation I'm against it.
This is a good argument, and the basis for the Canadian version. I've never understood why Americans use it as a go-to shield; When people are constantly bringing it to the courts, you increase the odds that someone will lay down an anti-free speech ruling, which lays the base for someone abusing that ruling to cut off real free speech.
'How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? I'm offended when I see boy bands for god sake.'
Xan Krieger: This is entirely situational, telling a cop to go fuck himself is fine if said cop deserves it. If he's being harsh and unfair then by all means tell him he can shove his badge up his ass. As for the word nigger http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger "a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. " Not always offensive. Had to look up "disenfranchise" which means "to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote. " If someone loses their citizenship they are a nigger and that's non-offensive. Besides that word appears in comedy a lot. Ever listen to Kat Williams? You get rid of that word you get rid of 1/3rd of his act. The fact is words are situational so unless you define a law for every possible situation I'm against it.
How often have you heard someone use the word "nigger" as a synonym for "disenfranchised" rather than "black person (with hateful overtones)"? If it's situational, you have to take into account the cultural ramifications of using the word, especially if, as the OP said, it was the KKK walking up to some guy on the street and saying it to him.
Xan Krieger: This is entirely situational, telling a cop to go fuck himself is fine if said cop deserves it. If he's being harsh and unfair then by all means tell him he can shove his badge up his ass. As for the word nigger http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger "a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. " Not always offensive. Had to look up "disenfranchise" which means "to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote. " If someone loses their citizenship they are a nigger and that's non-offensive. Besides that word appears in comedy a lot. Ever listen to Kat Williams? You get rid of that word you get rid of 1/3rd of his act. The fact is words are situational so unless you define a law for every possible situation I'm against it.
How often have you heard someone use the word "nigger" as a synonym for "disenfranchised" rather than "black person (with hateful overtones)"? If it's situational, you have to take into account the cultural ramifications of using the word, especially if, as the OP said, it was the KKK walking up to some guy on the street and saying it to him.
Even if you banned the words how would you enforce it? would you throw half of the people who play xbox live in prison?
Xan Krieger: This is entirely situational, telling a cop to go fuck himself is fine if said cop deserves it. If he's being harsh and unfair then by all means tell him he can shove his badge up his ass. As for the word nigger http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger "a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. " Not always offensive. Had to look up "disenfranchise" which means "to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote. " If someone loses their citizenship they are a nigger and that's non-offensive. Besides that word appears in comedy a lot. Ever listen to Kat Williams? You get rid of that word you get rid of 1/3rd of his act. The fact is words are situational so unless you define a law for every possible situation I'm against it.
How often have you heard someone use the word "nigger" as a synonym for "disenfranchised" rather than "black person (with hateful overtones)"? If it's situational, you have to take into account the cultural ramifications of using the word, especially if, as the OP said, it was the KKK walking up to some guy on the street and saying it to him.
Even if you banned the words how would you enforce it? would you throw half of the people who play xbox live in prison?
In Canada, it's usually linked to another crime, like abuse or death threats, and acts like a multiplier. To quote the Criminal Code: "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor... (will be considered to be a hate crime, and result in an increase in the sentence). People on Xbox live probably wouldn't be thrown into jail for a first offence, but they would get a fine if they were reported. Personally, I think that is the best way to do it; if we are going to insist that games should be respected, we should hold the community up to society's rules of behavior.
How often have you heard someone use the word "nigger" as a synonym for "disenfranchised" rather than "black person (with hateful overtones)"? If it's situational, you have to take into account the cultural ramifications of using the word, especially if, as the OP said, it was the KKK walking up to some guy on the street and saying it to him.
Even if you banned the words how would you enforce it? would you throw half of the people who play xbox live in prison?
In Canada, it's usually linked to another crime, like abuse or death threats, and acts like a multiplier. To quote the Criminal Code: "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor... (will be considered to be a hate crime, and result in an increase in the sentence). People on Xbox live probably wouldn't be thrown into jail for a first offence, but they would get a fine if they were reported. Personally, I think that is the best way to do it; if we are going to insist that games should be respected, we should hold the community up to society's rules of behavior.
A fine for saying a word? That sounds beyond crazy. If they send you a death threat then you fine them, for just insulting you there's no need to fine someone for it. If someone calls me a retard I'm not gonna demand they be fined, I'm gonna insult them back and continue with my day. If we start fining people for offending other people then we're all going to jail eventually.
Xan Krieger: Even if you banned the words how would you enforce it? would you throw half of the people who play xbox live in prison?
In Canada, it's usually linked to another crime, like abuse or death threats, and acts like a multiplier. To quote the Criminal Code: "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor... (will be considered to be a hate crime, and result in an increase in the sentence). People on Xbox live probably wouldn't be thrown into jail for a first offence, but they would get a fine if they were reported. Personally, I think that is the best way to do it; if we are going to insist that games should be respected, we should hold the community up to society's rules of behavior.
A fine for saying a word? That sounds beyond crazy. If they send you a death threat then you fine them, for just insulting you there's no need to fine someone for it. If someone calls me a retard I'm not gonna demand they be fined, I'm gonna insult them back and continue with my day. If we start fining people for offending other people then we're all going to jail eventually.
It's not just saying a word; it's a deliberate act to wound. If someone said "Fuck you!" in a moment of anger to an opposing player, that would probably be shrugged off by the other person, and even if they did pursue legal action the offender would get no more than a reprimand. If, however, the offender followed you from match to match, screaming all kinds of abuse and deliberately trying to hurt you or drive you away, THAT would be the more likely scenario for a fine. If you want to counter-insult instead of pursuing legal action for a single comment, most people would accept that as the best action; the laws are to protect people from those who are intentionally trying to harm another, just like other laws.
On a side note, do you notice we have taken over this thread? Bwa-ha-ha, first the thread, then THE WORLD!
Xan Krieger: This is entirely situational, telling a cop to go fuck himself is fine if said cop deserves it. If he's being harsh and unfair then by all means tell him he can shove his badge up his ass. As for the word nigger http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger "a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. " Not always offensive. Had to look up "disenfranchise" which means "to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote. " If someone loses their citizenship they are a nigger and that's non-offensive. Besides that word appears in comedy a lot. Ever listen to Kat Williams? You get rid of that word you get rid of 1/3rd of his act. The fact is words are situational so unless you define a law for every possible situation I'm against it.
Actually, cops can arrest you for telling them to go fuck themselves through a variety of laws including already present indecency and obscenity laws and resisting arrest. As for your definition of the nigger, there is a difference between calling a man a nigger, which using the same page as you is Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive and saying it in a comedic sense, such as Kat Williams or to provide scope of depth to a novel, Huckleberry Finn. What I'm arguing for is not censorship, it's fairness. Also, I like how you used the last and least offensive of the definitions, the other two being Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a. a black person. b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc. from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger
In Canada, it's usually linked to another crime, like abuse or death threats, and acts like a multiplier. To quote the Criminal Code: "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor... (will be considered to be a hate crime, and result in an increase in the sentence). People on Xbox live probably wouldn't be thrown into jail for a first offence, but they would get a fine if they were reported. Personally, I think that is the best way to do it; if we are going to insist that games should be respected, we should hold the community up to society's rules of behavior.
A fine for saying a word? That sounds beyond crazy. If they send you a death threat then you fine them, for just insulting you there's no need to fine someone for it. If someone calls me a retard I'm not gonna demand they be fined, I'm gonna insult them back and continue with my day. If we start fining people for offending other people then we're all going to jail eventually.
It's not just saying a word; it's a deliberate act to wound. If someone said "Fuck you!" in a moment of anger to an opposing player, that would probably be shrugged off by the other person, and even if they did pursue legal action the offender would get no more than a reprimand. If, however, the offender followed you from match to match, screaming all kinds of abuse and deliberately trying to hurt you or drive you away, THAT would be the more likely scenario for a fine. If you want to counter-insult instead of pursuing legal action for a single comment, most people would accept that as the best action; the laws are to protect people from those who are intentionally trying to harm another, just like other laws.
On a side note, do you notice we have taken over this thread? Bwa-ha-ha, first the thread, then THE WORLD!
Firstly if the same person is insulting you, even after you leave the game, then that's harrassment and already illegal. If they insult you just while you play the game that is normal and you should just ignore them.
Secondly yes I did notice that. Which part of the world do you want? I'm claiming Israel first.
DailonCmann: Actually, cops can arrest you for telling them to go fuck themselves through a variety of laws including already present indecency and obscenity laws and resisting arrest. As for your definition of the nigger, there is a difference between calling a man a nigger, which using the same page as you is Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive and saying it in a comedic sense, such as Kat Williams or to provide scope of depth to a novel, Huckleberry Finn. What I'm arguing for is not censorship, it's fairness. Also, I like how you used the last and least offensive of the definitions, the other two being Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a. a black person. b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc. from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger
Alright I support the law that is against the ability to swear at cops being repealed. That law is stupid and fails to take into account that it is sometimes appropriate. As for the rest of your post, offending someone does not justify fines and there is no way you can convince me otherwise. It's just a word. If someone called me a retard because I have asperger's syndrome (diagnosed by a professional at age 12) they would not recieve a fine because it is a word.
I don't have a problem with people that have different opinions and them voicing. I do have a problem with unrational thinking and close mindedness.
Though society usually has it ways of rooting out that sort of people. No need for laws and restrictions on it. Though I'm pretty sure spreading racist/hatefull "Propaganda" is already illegal, atleast here it is.
Hmm well the First Amendment means the government can't punish you for exercising your right to freedom of speech (unless you are encouraging violence against someone or other criminal activity etc). If however you start using the long N word with black people at your job then your boss can fire you for that though I think their legal stance is stronger if they are firing you because of the disruption not because of your views themselves.
Also while we are on the subject, if you post something on facebook then anyone with access to your facebook page can legally view it. Its not an invasion of privacy and yes businesses can and will hold you responsible for what you say or do on the internet. That boys and girls is why you create an alias for yourself on the internet.
Seekster: Also while we are on the subject, if you post something on facebook then anyone with access to your facebook page can legally view it. Its not an invasion of privacy and yes businesses can and will hold you responsible for what you say or do on the internet. That boys and girls is why you create an alias for yourself on the internet.
That is one thing I don't get. People get all defensive about Facebook, saying "Well I say these things in public with my friends and not get fired, why should it make a difference on Facebook?" Because on Facebook it's published there permanently for all the world to see. People might look up the business on Facebook and see you tied in with it. Facebook is a place that can link the workplace and the "public," which means whatever standards of workplace behavior you have must also be upheld. If it something you can't say at work, it's something you shouldn't say on Facebook. That's what private messages are for.
Free speech (other than a few exceptions) is something you need not (and hence should not) legislate against, because society can legislate itself against such things. Go up to a random black guy and call him a n*gger; even if you don't get punched in the face, any other witnesses will think you're an arsehole, and treat you like one from then on. That's the only punishment you need; people will think a hell of a lot worse of you. In todays society of social media and virals that can be one heck of a bad punishment. Do you remember that woman talking racist shit on a bus that got posted to Youtube? Yeah, she's not getting much luck in interviews anymore.
It's a bit like adultery. As Christopher Hitchens puts it, the penalty for adultery is self inflicted. It doesn't need to be illegal, because the social consequences of that action are punishment enough. The bottom line is you're allowed to do these things, but people are allowed to discriminate against you for doing them.
Now, I had to make a clause of "other than a few exceptions" above. I wasn't going to. I saw the topic title and was about to wade in with the usual "free speech has no exceptions" blah blah, but then I saw your example (and the only one that made me look twice) of saying "fire" in a theatre. Ok, you've got me on that one. That's the same as saying you're carrying a bomb as you walk through customs, or walking into a police station confessing to a murder that didn't take place. I'm not sure quite what this falls under (not quite purjury, but similar), but it's probably ok to call this an exception to the rule.
Xan Krieger: A fine for saying a word? That sounds beyond crazy. If they send you a death threat then you fine them, for just insulting you there's no need to fine someone for it. If someone calls me a retard I'm not gonna demand they be fined, I'm gonna insult them back and continue with my day. If we start fining people for offending other people then we're all going to jail eventually.
It's not just saying a word; it's a deliberate act to wound. If someone said "Fuck you!" in a moment of anger to an opposing player, that would probably be shrugged off by the other person, and even if they did pursue legal action the offender would get no more than a reprimand. If, however, the offender followed you from match to match, screaming all kinds of abuse and deliberately trying to hurt you or drive you away, THAT would be the more likely scenario for a fine. If you want to counter-insult instead of pursuing legal action for a single comment, most people would accept that as the best action; the laws are to protect people from those who are intentionally trying to harm another, just like other laws.
On a side note, do you notice we have taken over this thread? Bwa-ha-ha, first the thread, then THE WORLD!
Firstly if the same person is insulting you, even after you leave the game, then that's harrassment and already illegal. If they insult you just while you play the game that is normal and you should just ignore them.
Secondly yes I did notice that. Which part of the world do you want? I'm claiming Israel first.
I admit my example could have been better. The underlying thrust, which I didn't communicate clearly, is that research indicates that words are not just words; for a popular example, look at gay teens who commit suicide after only verbal abuse. The line between harassment and hate-speech is fuzzy, but if people are treating others unfairly because of something like race, gender, etc., then those people deserve protection from the abuse. In modern society, that means legislation to provide a firm footing while you pursue legal action to stop the abuse.
You're welcome to Israel; I can't wait to see a three-way argument between you, the Israelis and the Palestinians over who it belongs to. I'll take Greece and Turkey; I could use a warm vacation.
WoW Killer: Free speech (other than a few exceptions) is something you need not (and hence should not) legislate against, because society can legislate itself against such things. Go up to a random black guy and call him a n*gger; even if you don't get punched in the face, any other witnesses will think you're an arsehole, and treat you like one from then on. That's the only punishment you need; people will think a hell of a lot worse of you. In todays society of social media and virals that can be one heck of a bad punishment. Do you remember that woman talking racist shit on a bus that got posted to Youtube? Yeah, she's not getting much luck in interviews anymore.
It's a bit like adultery. As Christopher Hitchens puts it, the penalty for adultery is self inflicted. It doesn't need to be illegal, because the social consequences of that action are punishment enough. The bottom line is you're allowed to do these things, but people are allowed to discriminate against you for doing them.
Now, I had to make a clause of "other than a few exceptions" above. I wasn't going to. I saw the topic title and was about to wade in with the usual "free speech has no exceptions" blah blah, but then I saw your example (and the only one that made me look twice) of saying "fire" in a theatre. Ok, you've got me on that one. That's the same as saying you're carrying a bomb as you walk through customs, or walking into a police station confessing to a murder that didn't take place. I'm not sure quite what this falls under (not quite purjury, but similar), but it's probably ok to call this an exception to the rule.
I don't need to campaign for this legislation, because it already exists. The case of that one woman who sad something racist is an outlier, that's not the norm. Abusive or derogatory behavior isn't just present and condoned by society, sometimes it's downright encouraged. People deserve the right to live free of abuse. In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
When somebody is walks up to a black person and calls them a "nigger", is that not a political statement that society should hold that man in contempt for his race? Does the term not carry in it the entire ideology of the white pride movement and the policies of segregation, which is what gives it such weight?
And what of scientific findings? Cultural expressions? Blasphemy? Should the state be allowed to suppress those at will?
The very second the state gain any kind of power to determine what "speech" is acceptable, the very purpose of the right to Freedom of Speech - to allow any individual to voice its dissent no matter how controversial - is irrevocably lost.
Only actions, or verbal utterances directly analogous to such - the shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre situation - can ever reasonably be banned by it. Nobody have any right not to be offended, for it is only the speech which offends the ruling sentiments the most that can bring change.
When somebody is walks up to a black person and calls them a "nigger", is that not a political statement that society should hold that man in contempt for his race? Does the term not carry in it the entire ideology of the white pride movement and the policies of segregation, which is what gives it such weight?
And what of scientific findings? Cultural expressions? Blasphemy? Should the state be allowed to suppress those at will?
The very second the state gain any kind of power to determine what "speech" is acceptable, the very purpose of the right to Freedom of Speech - to allow any individual to voice its dissent no matter how controversial - is irrevocably lost.
Only actions, or verbal utterances directly analogous to such - the shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre situation - can ever reasonably be banned by it. Nobody have any right not to be offended, for it is only the speech which offends the ruling sentiments the most that can bring change.
You're discussing state sponsored censorship, I am not. This is personal censorship. A few posts up, I explained the difference between my opinions of censoring certain people's actions through punishments, the use of the word nigger from one human to another with intent to harass or abuse and the use of it in art, be it Huckleberry Finn or a Kat Williams standup special. Words carry weight. Words can hurt. My right to disagree with your opinion is an example of free speech in a setting of political discourse, but if I came to your house and followed you around screaming in your face whatever slur came to mind, it would become personal and you would have the right to seek legal action against me.
DailonCmann: You're discussing state sponsored censorship, I am not. This is personal censorship.
The laws which instate "personal censorship" are given and upheld by the state; Hence they are censorship imposed by the state.
A few posts up, I explained the difference between my opinions of censoring certain people's actions through punishments, the use of the word nigger from one human to another with intent to harass or abuse and the use of it in art, be it Huckleberry Finn or a Kat Williams standup special.
Which I've already addressed: The very second the state gain any kind of power to determine what "speech" is acceptable, the very purpose of the right to Freedom of Speech - to allow any individual to voice its dissent no matter how controversial - is irrevocably lost.
What are you doing but encouraging it to do so?
Words carry weight. Words can hurt.
Only if they are true. Or directly analogous to action.
What idiots are hurt by a lie that entail or incite no physical consequence?
My right to disagree with your opinion is an example of free speech in a setting of political discourse, but if I came to your house and followed you around screaming in your face whatever slur came to mind, it would become personal and you would have the right to seek legal action against me.
In that case I could simply have you arrested for breaking and entering.
Only if they are true. Or directly analogous to action.
What idiot is hurt by a lie that entail or incite no physical consequence?
This argument is deeply flawed. Plenty of people are hurt everyday by what others say, no matter what you are, if you're told something day in and day out, you will start to think of yourself as that. Or if I berated a homosexual child for being gay, that's not a lie. That holds no physical consequence. But every day, people are bullied, harassed, abused, and tormented using these same tools. I'm not arguing for these tools to be enacted, they already are. I'm saying something that already exists is just. People have the right to use the law to defend themselves. They have the right to silence other people who are actively trying to do them harm. They have the right to live life free of fear, persecution, and other such nonsense. I am simply saying that is how these laws should be interpreted and that is how they are being interpreted.
DailonCmann: I see a lot of things in my day to day life, on these forums or off, where people call someone things like "nigger, faggot, chink, etc." Often when someone tries to say anything about and calls them out for it, they tote out the First Amendment and say that they're in their rights to do so. Now, I believe in Free Speech as a political ideal, when in a political situation, you're free to your opinion and you have the right to say so. For example, The KKK has the right to organize and believe whites are superior. They do not have the right to walk up to a African-American man on the street and call him a nigger. That is at worst, a hate crime, and at the least, harassment.
Laws against the word nigger would violate free speech. Also if you wanted to ban the word nigger, it would also have to apply to black people due to the 14th.
DailonCmann: Free speech is meant to protect political ideals, not the right to be a dick to people and not be punished.
So how would this work? You can't call people things that you know would bother them?
Well that would mean that we'd have to ban the words scumbag, asshole, etc. etc.
If I wanted to piss off a black guy (I'm white), nigger would be a cheap and easy shot and it'd probably work.
But I could compare them to vomit, call them a low-life, call them rotten to their very core and other nasty things that don't depend on their race or gender or other such traits. Surely those would be likely to upset them. Should that be banned?
What about shallow, greedy, lazy, selfish, ignorant etc.? I could call people those things, and upset them and yet they could very well be accurate.
DailonCmann: I see a lot of things in my day to day life, on these forums or off, where people call someone things like "nigger, faggot, chink, etc." Often when someone tries to say anything about and calls them out for it, they tote out the First Amendment and say that they're in their rights to do so. Now, I believe in Free Speech as a political ideal, when in a political situation, you're free to your opinion and you have the right to say so. For example, The KKK has the right to organize and believe whites are superior. They do not have the right to walk up to a African-American man on the street and call him a nigger. That is at worst, a hate crime, and at the least, harassment.
Laws against the word nigger would violate free speech. Also if you wanted to ban the word nigger, it would also have to apply to black people due to the 14th.
DailonCmann: Free speech is meant to protect political ideals, not the right to be a dick to people and not be punished.
So how would this work? You can't call people things that you know would bother them?
Well that would mean that we'd have to ban the words scumbag, asshole, etc. etc.
If I wanted to piss off a black guy (I'm white), nigger would be a cheap and easy shot and it'd probably work.
But I could compare them to vomit, call them a low-life, call them rotten to their very core and other nasty things that don't depend on their race or gender or other such traits. Surely those would be likely to upset them. Should that be banned?
What about shallow, greedy, lazy, selfish, ignorant etc.? I could call people those things, and upset them and yet they could very well be accurate.
And they would be well within their rights to sue you for verbal harassment. I'm not for getting rid of certain words, I'm for being able to hold douche-bags accountable when they harass people and try to use the first amendment to protect themselves from repercussions.
Free speech means that if you (a theoretical white person) calls someone a nigger, feel free, but don't be alarmed when many other people use their free speech to tell you what they feel about you saying that.
DailonCmann: I see a lot of things in my day to day life, on these forums or off, where people call someone things like "nigger, faggot, chink, etc." Often when someone tries to say anything about and calls them out for it, they tote out the First Amendment and say that they're in their rights to do so. Now, I believe in Free Speech as a political ideal, when in a political situation, you're free to your opinion and you have the right to say so. For example, The KKK has the right to organize and believe whites are superior. They do not have the right to walk up to a African-American man on the street and call him a nigger. That is at worst, a hate crime, and at the least, harassment.
Laws against the word nigger would violate free speech. Also if you wanted to ban the word nigger, it would also have to apply to black people due to the 14th.
DailonCmann: Free speech is meant to protect political ideals, not the right to be a dick to people and not be punished.
So how would this work? You can't call people things that you know would bother them?
Well that would mean that we'd have to ban the words scumbag, asshole, etc. etc.
If I wanted to piss off a black guy (I'm white), nigger would be a cheap and easy shot and it'd probably work.
But I could compare them to vomit, call them a low-life, call them rotten to their very core and other nasty things that don't depend on their race or gender or other such traits. Surely those would be likely to upset them. Should that be banned?
What about shallow, greedy, lazy, selfish, ignorant etc.? I could call people those things, and upset them and yet they could very well be accurate.
And they would be well within their rights to sue you for verbal harassment. I'm not for getting rid of certain words, I'm for being able to hold douche-bags accountable when they harass people and try to use the first amendment to protect themselves from repercussions.
Form what I understand harassment isn't just insulting someone, it's repeatedly insulting them and trying to make sure they can't stop listening to you. (This is a good time to mention I'm not a lawyer)
The first amendment does cover nasty insults (that aren't slander), but you have a right to not listen.
I disagree, you cannot pick and choose which americans you give rights to.
Michael Diana is a comic book artist based in Florida. He has his own small, independent comic book called Boiled Angel. The comic was sent out to about 300 subscribers across the United States and abroad (Henry 67). Diana's artwork is graphic and considered obscene in nature by many. His comic is full of "brutal images incorporating penises, breasts, excrement, blood, and intestines" (67). Diana was arrested and found guilty of production and distribution of obscene material, on March 29, 1994 (Shepherd n.p.). His images are obscene in nature, yet Diana should not have been charged with criminal offenses for his artwork. He has every right to produce whatever he feels like doing according to the First Amendment. Some people may not consider Diana's artwork tasteful, but opinion is not a reason to arrest someone. Throughout history, many books have been banned and many art exhibits have been pulled, but this is the first time an artist is being jailed for his artwork. Diana should not have been charged with production and distribution of obscene material.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the freedom of speech and the freedom of press to the citizens of this country. The First Amendment allows Diana to express his ideas on paper. There have been some restrictions placed on the freedom of speech. In "Miller v. California," Marvin Miller was promoting four adult books and one adult movie by mass mailing brochures that contained sexually photographs. Someone complained about the brochures and Miller was arrested. "Miller v. California" ruled that material must pass all three of the following tests in order for it to be considered obscene. The first test is that the objectional material must deal with sex in a manner unappealing to the "contemporary community standards" (Hunt, ed. 403). Second, it must portray sex in a patently offensive way (403). Third, it must have no serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. If the material does not meet all three of these criteria, the material is obscene. Unlike Miller, Diana did not mass mail his zine. His zine was sent out to subscribers over the age of 18. Diana required written proof of age in order to send out his zine (Romenesko 13). In order for Diana's material not to be considered obscene, it just has to not to pass one of the three criteria sent forward by the court. No average person would find Diana1s artwork dealing with sex in a manner that is appealing to the contemporary community standards. Diana1s artwork is more disgusting than it is sexually appealing, yet the New York Times says that Diana1s work is full sophisticated verbal wit and cynicism (Gross 74). This shows that Diana has some literary value to his work. Diana is not in violation of any of laws mentioned. As a matter of fact, these laws protect him. Yes, you cannot pick and choose which americans you give rights to.
KlLLUMINATI: I disagree, you cannot pick and choose which americans you give rights to.
Michael Diana is a comic book artist based in Florida. He has his own small, independent comic book called Boiled Angel. The comic was sent out to about 300 subscribers across the United States and abroad (Henry 67). Diana's artwork is graphic and considered obscene in nature by many. His comic is full of "brutal images incorporating penises, breasts, excrement, blood, and intestines" (67). Diana was arrested and found guilty of production and distribution of obscene material, on March 29, 1994 (Shepherd n.p.). His images are obscene in nature, yet Diana should not have been charged with criminal offenses for his artwork. He has every right to produce whatever he feels like doing according to the First Amendment. Some people may not consider Diana's artwork tasteful, but opinion is not a reason to arrest someone. Throughout history, many books have been banned and many art exhibits have been pulled, but this is the first time an artist is being jailed for his artwork. Diana should not have been charged with production and distribution of obscene material.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the freedom of speech and the freedom of press to the citizens of this country. The First Amendment allows Diana to express his ideas on paper. There have been some restrictions placed on the freedom of speech. In "Miller v. California," Marvin Miller was promoting four adult books and one adult movie by mass mailing brochures that contained sexually photographs. Someone complained about the brochures and Miller was arrested. "Miller v. California" ruled that material must pass all three of the following tests in order for it to be considered obscene. The first test is that the objectional material must deal with sex in a manner unappealing to the "contemporary community standards" (Hunt, ed. 403). Second, it must portray sex in a patently offensive way (403). Third, it must have no serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. If the material does not meet all three of these criteria, the material is obscene. Unlike Miller, Diana did not mass mail his zine. His zine was sent out to subscribers over the age of 18. Diana required written proof of age in order to send out his zine (Romenesko 13). In order for Diana's material not to be considered obscene, it just has to not to pass one of the three criteria sent forward by the court. No average person would find Diana1s artwork dealing with sex in a manner that is appealing to the contemporary community standards. Diana1s artwork is more disgusting than it is sexually appealing, yet the New York Times says that Diana1s work is full sophisticated verbal wit and cynicism (Gross 74). This shows that Diana has some literary value to his work. Diana is not in violation of any of laws mentioned. As a matter of fact, these laws protect him. Yes, you cannot pick and choose which americans you give rights to.
Once again, this is a statement of art, not harassment. He didn't shove the book in anyone's face, he didn't scream at them to read it. That is not what I am discussing. I am against people using the first amendment to shield themselves from the repercussions of harassing, belittling, or otherwise emotionally harming someone with their words or actions.
From your perception of how little can be expected of citizens in regard to solving their own verbal jousts, and your notion that mere hurt feelings somehow constitutes discernible harm.
Plenty of people are hurt everyday by what others say, no matter what you are, if you're told something day in and day out, you will start to think of yourself as that.
And they are accountable for letting it affect them, assuming they're adults of legal age and full mental maturity.
Butthurt feelings are no concern of the law. Such does not constitute "harm".
Or if I berated a homosexual child for being gay, that's not a lie. That holds no physical consequence. But every day, people are bullied, harassed, abused, and tormented using these same tools.
Nobody have any right to praise, empathy, respect, or social inclusion from others. Nor any right to remain ignorant of their opinion on them.
Though, when it comes to children and the mentally disabled, I'm more agreeable to allow certain restraints, as they cannot be expected to stand up for themselves in a discussion. Adults can be expected to raise their own voices though, rather than cling at the skirts of society as a dead weight on it.
I'm not arguing for these tools to be enacted, they already are. I'm saying something that already exists is just.
And I'm saying it is wrong, and should be abolished in the places it does exist, which isn'teverywhere.
Anyway, that a law exist says nothing of whether it is reasonable and just. Are the blasphemy and obscenity laws of Saudi Arabia (...or anywhere else really) justice simply because they exist?
People have the right to use the law to defend themselves. They have the right to silence other people who are actively trying to do them harm. They have the right to live life free of fear, persecution, and other such nonsense. I am simply saying that is how these laws should be interpreted and that is how they are being interpreted.
And I'm simply disagreeing, and will argue and vote against them any chance given.
I don't think they should be there, and it's not like these laws are of much efficiency anyway. A few of their caveats: - They can't do anything about social alienation and isolation which is the real sting (whether accompanied by harsh words or not), - They don't actually solve the roots of the conflictual speech they ban, but merely forces it underground to fester and grow (into violence), - The internet now offers countless ways to break them from untraceable and unreachable jurisdictions, - Some only protect certain groups from condemnation, whereas others of equal need are left unprotected, and are hence discriminatory in nature.
I'm of the belief that anybody should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want, that's far more important than hurting someone's feelings. Boohoo, they're just words.
I'm also disgusted that holocaust denial is illegal in some places.
The philosophy of our age is you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. On the surface this statement looks fairly sensible. It looks like freedom of speech, of action. But can you have true freedom with no (or little) boundaries?
'As long as it doesn't hurt anyone' is a subjective boundary. You can put it where you like and justify almost anything, as long as it feels right to you. But what if my behaviour doesn't feel right to someone else? What if I am hurting someone and they are so politically correct, so polite that they can't say anything? And this philosophy doesn't apply to everyone.
Take the swear word 'God' or 'Jesus' for instance. If you're a Christian and someone swears with these words, it can be highly offensive but most people continue to say it regardless. And who are we to say who is going to be hurt and who isn't? It's subjective and we don't know everything.
To be frank, I really don't think many of us stop to consider whether we are hurting people. We're kind of desensitised to that kind of compassion because we're individuals now and we have rights. The individual always trumps the group/community. It's a stubborn, narrow view of the world in my opinion.
People like WBC are quite obviously in the wrong morally, and free speech should be limited in situations that are absolutely unacceptable (like outside funerals). But I think our laws in the UK go a little too far. You should be able to swear in public without being fined, as long as it isn't meant in an offensive manner (not a contradiction). And you should be able to criticise someone's opinion even if they don't like this - obviously within certain realms of decency.
Jedoro: I'm a fan of just sticking to the "clear and present danger" standard, where you can't say things that can provably physically endanger people.
The problem though is when you get 'experts' on the media or politicians and the like that endanger people and hide obvious lies and 'not intended to be a factual statement's behind free speech.
Yes, they're not immediately killing people, but..
Seekster: Also while we are on the subject, if you post something on facebook then anyone with access to your facebook page can legally view it. Its not an invasion of privacy and yes businesses can and will hold you responsible for what you say or do on the internet. That boys and girls is why you create an alias for yourself on the internet.
That is one thing I don't get. People get all defensive about Facebook, saying "Well I say these things in public with my friends and not get fired, why should it make a difference on Facebook?" Because on Facebook it's published there permanently for all the world to see. People might look up the business on Facebook and see you tied in with it. Facebook is a place that can link the workplace and the "public," which means whatever standards of workplace behavior you have must also be upheld. If it something you can't say at work, it's something you shouldn't say on Facebook. That's what private messages are for.
Except private messages aren't really private anymore either, as your emails run through public servers and are treated the same way as if you tattooed it on your face. That's been the rationale of judges issuing subpoenas for email accounts and the like.
The problem with Facebook though is that it's easy for others to post stuff you did or said while not on Facebook, to Facebook, and it's just as good as if you did it yourself.
Creating online aliases doesn't matter. The only way to keep yourself entirely off Facebook is to refuse to have friends or live nearby people with busy cell phone video cameras that have Facebook or YouTube accounts.
An employer doesn't have to be friends with you, or you to have a Facebook page. They'll look you up via being one of Facebook's advertisers, whom Facebook and Google sell your information to. And they're getting too lazy and cheap to even do that, now places are asking you to give up your Facebook passwords to them.
Or, to follow Google's 'advice' and never do or say anything ever. Even if it's things that you legally and morally have reason to avoid like drinking on a vacation.
I see a lot of things in my day to day life, on these forums or off, where people call someone things like "nigger, faggot, chink, etc." Often when someone tries to say anything about and calls them out for it, they tote out the First Amendment and say that they're in their rights to do so. Now, I believe in Free Speech as a political ideal, when in a political situation, you're free to your opinion and you have the right to say so. For example, The KKK has the right to organize and believe whites are superior. They do not have the right to walk up to a African-American man on the street and call him a nigger. That is at worst, a hate crime, and at the least, harassment. In a social circle however, there are already laws about things you can't say. You can't shout "fire" in a theater, you can't shout "fuck" to a cop, and you can't verbally abuse someone. Free speech is meant to protect political ideals, not the right to be a dick to people and not be punished.