Hate Speech...

[SilverBear]

*rolls eyes and walks away*

I'm done.
I really have no interest in people who want to have disengenous conversation.

the claim that preachers are being incarcerated is the only disingenuous thing that has cropped up in this thread

 

[SilverBear]

That's the thing, though.

It's one thing to say "You can't murder another person".
It's another to say "You can't upset another person."

One is reasonable. The other is not.

so if someone were to park out in front of your child's school and use a bull horn to shout obscenities and claims about how the members of the neighboring synagogue are going to come into the school to select a child from each class to sacrifice you would be supportive of them and how they are exercising their right to free speech?

 

[Sparagmos]

I listened to talk back - the level of raw hate being expressed presently was disturbing.

At the same time Governments are increasing legislation against 'hate speech'

What Hate is OK and what Hate is not ???

Have you read the legislation and descriptions of what hate speech is? It’s pretty specific.

 

[NerdGirl]

the people they do this with are founders and leaders of the group often acting as spokesperson for their group...why is that disingenuous?

Not always founders and leaders. One of the groups mentioned only cited quotes from the "Director of Analysis" (whatever that is). Another of the groups in the list has a whopping 5 known members (obviously a HUGE threat). And much of the information is outdated. A quick google of a few of the groups listed reveal no peep in the public sector for a decade or more.

SPLC is...amusing.

I mean...

Yeah, I just chuckle and shake my head at SPLC.

 

[NerdGirl]

Have you read the legislation and descriptions of what hate speech is? It’s pretty specific.

It's really not, from some of the policies I've read. Granted, they can differ vastly depending on what country you're talking about, and in the U.S. which state you're in.

 

[SilverBear]

Not always founders and leaders. One of the groups mentioned only cited quotes from the "Director of Analysis" (whatever that is).

what group is that?

Another of the groups in the list has a whopping 5 known members (obviously a HUGE threat).

what is the magic number a group must have to be a threat?

And much of the information is outdated. A quick google of a few of the groups listed reveal no peep in the public sector for a decade or more.

what groups?

 

[NerdGirl]

what group is that?
what is the magic number a group must have to be a threat?

what groups?

I'm going by the link YOU posted, lol. Did you even read through it and learn about the claims in it? I'd encourage you to do some research as I did

Also, entirely unrelated, but I love your avatar. It's beautiful.

 

[SilverBear]

I'm going by the link YOU posted, lol.

i haven't posted a link here

Did you even read through it and learn about the claims in it? I'd encourage you to do some research as I did

Also, entirely unrelated, but I love your avatar. It's beautiful.

you made several claims and you are being asked to back them up with what amounts to same very basic information.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm going by the link YOU posted, lol. Did you even read through it and learn about the claims in it? I'd encourage you to do some research as I did

Also, entirely unrelated, but I love your avatar. It's beautiful.

I'm going by the link YOU posted, lol. Did you even read through it and learn about the claims in it? I'd encourage you to do some research as I did

Also, entirely unrelated, but I love your avatar. It's beautiful.

He isn't interested in honest dialogue...

 

[NerdGirl]

i haven't posted a link here

Shiver me timbers! You're right, it's the link Jamsie posted. Feel free to read it

you made several claims and you are being asked to back them up with what amounts to same very basic information.

They can all be backed up by reading the link that was posted and doing some quick research. I'm at work (I work full time) so I can't double back and re-read and repost everything all the time.

 

[NerdGirl]

He isn't interested in honest dialogue...

Ah, well. Still a beautiful avatar

 

[SilverBear]

Shiver me timbers! You're right, it's the link Jamsie posted. Feel free to read it



They can all be backed up by reading the link that was posted and doing some quick research. I'm at work (I work full time) so I can't double back and re-read and repost everything all the time.

you had plenty of time to research them before.

 

[SilverBear]

BUMP

That's the thing, though.

It's one thing to say "You can't murder another person".
It's another to say "You can't upset another person."

One is reasonable. The other is not.

so if someone were to park out in front of your child's school and use a bull horn to shout obscenities and claims about how the members of the neighboring synagogue are going to come into the school to select a child from each class to sacrifice you would be supportive of them and how they are exercising their right to free speech?

 

[SilverBear]

He isn't interested in honest dialogue...

i'm not the one making claims about preachers being incarcerated

 

[NerdGirl]

you had plenty of time to research them before.

Funny how that works! You can tell my clients that they need to stop giving me work to do so I can research it again

 

[NerdGirl]

so if someone were to park out in front of your child's school and use a bull horn to shout obscenities and claims about how the members of the neighboring synagogue are going to come into the school to select a child from each class to sacrifice you would be supportive of them and how they are exercising their right to free speech?

I might investigate whether they could be removed for being a public nuisance for harassing school children with a bullhorn.

Bit different than adults quietly sharing their own opinions on Twitter. If they wanted to have their own online group about fantasizing about sacrificing children, then as gross and creepy as that is, they should be allowed to do that.

I am not a supporter of the concept of "hate speech". This term typically revolves around "perceived minority groups", so children really don't fit into that demographic.

 

[Sparagmos]

But speak out against the practice of same sex physical intimacy and you likely will become incarcerated for hate speech.

C’mon, John. You’re a reasonable guy and surely you don’t believe that.

People speak out everyday, here on CF, and from the pulpit and in the streets, against homosexuality and are not “likely” to become incarcerated. In fact, I’m not aware of anyone being incarcerated for that.

 

[Redwingfan9]

BUMP





so if someone were to park out in front of your child's school and use a bull horn to shout obscenities and claims about how the members of the neighboring synagogue are going to come into the school to select a child from each class to sacrifice you would be supportive of them and how they are exercising their right to free speech?

The fact is that here in America what you're describing is protected free speech. Anyone can stand on the sidewalk and say whatever they want, handout pamphlets etc. The only thing that may legitimately run afoul of the law is the blowhorn and then only if there is a noise ordinance which would prohibit amplified noise and speech.

Otherwise, if someone wants to stand on the sidewalk and criticize people they are free to. They're even free to walk very close to the line of inciting violence pursuant to Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 89 S. Ct. 1827; 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969). Likewise, in Cohen v California 403 US 15; 91 S. Ct. 1780; 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) even if someone is swearing that speech is protected. In Cohen the defendant wore a jacket or tshirt that said "F*** the draft" and was charged under an obscenity law. The Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional pursuant to the first amendment. (For the record I only included the obsenity because it was germaine to the Supreme Court case)

Point being, we don't have hate speech laws in this country because hate speech is protected by the first amendment. I dare say we don't want such laws either because the term hate is incredibly subjective. We shouldn't want the state determining what speech is hate and therefore banned and what speech is not hate and therefore allowed.

 

[SilverBear]

Funny how that works! You can tell my clients that they need to stop giving me work to do so I can research it again

who told them the first time?

 

[SilverBear]

I might investigate whether they could be removed for being a public nuisance for harassing school children with a bullhorn.

i thought it was unreasonable to have laws against upsetting people

Bit different than adults quietly sharing their own opinions on Twitter. If they wanted to have their own online group about fantasizing about sacrificing children, then as gross and creepy as that is, they should be allowed to do that.

read the scenario again

I am not a supporter of the concept of "hate speech". This term typically revolves around "perceived minority groups", so children really don't fit into that demographic.

it usually involves hate lies and violence directed at a minority group but can include non minorities. Your thing with the word perceived involves the perception of the one engaging in the hate. Someone may believe that a Catholic family is Jewish and spray paint a swastika on their home is still hate speech even if they got the target of their hate wrong