| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At any rate this whole hate speech thing seems very topical for me, as I just watched a series of documentaries on the "Video Nasties" ban that was enforced in the UK in the 80's and 90's.
The goal was to keep "violent and sadistic" movies out of the hands of children, and led to widespread banning or extreme editing of various horror movies and similar topics. At one point it got even so extreme that there were serious calls to ban all 18+ movies in total (at the time this was proposed this would have included such films as Schindler's List).
Of course...all of this was done with only subjective criteria and vague thoughts on how it could harm children, which meant complete ban on films like the Exorcist (Because kids would want to see it since it had a child actor), and heavy censorship of any movie with throwing stars or Nunchuks (yes...including TMNT movies), for fear kids would hurt themselves imitating things. It ultimately was seen as so subjective that for the most part the ban fell apart in 1999.
This, I think, should really be remembered, together with the 'Parental advisory' movement in the 80's.
Further more I think that this is also where, at least some small bit of the push back against the term politically correct, comes from - myself included. Some of us simply still remember, that the policing of Art and media, was all to often done to the cries of "Ohhh won't someone please think of the children!"
So long as the fact is along the lines of "Trump thinks too many muslim immigrants is a bad idea", you won't have a leg to stand on. That he thinks so is a fact, likely true, and leaves nothing to claim is false.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I've had the biggest electoral victory since reagan...
46. 2016 Donald Trump 538 304 227 0.130 56.50%
37. 2012 Barack Obama 538 332 206 0.234 61.71%
32. 2008 Barack Obama 538 365 173 0.357 67.84%
52. 2004 George W. Bush 538 286 251 0.063 53.16%
55. 2000 George W. Bush 538 271 266 0.009 50.37%
28. 1996 Bill Clinton 538 379 159 0.409 70.45%
30. 1992 Bill Clinton 538 370 168 0.375 68.77%
|
"I've had the biggest electoral victory since reagan...
When confronted with Clinton and Obama's larger electoral college wins Trump tried to move the goalposts, saying he meant the biggest amongst Republicans since Reagan... which was particularly sad, since the first President Bush also beat his total. By a lot.
my bad leaving bush 1 off the copy paste
22. 1988 George H. W. Bush 538 426 111 0.584 79.18%
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. According to Politifact, Trump said statements that were only half true or less, about 85% of the time. Clinton said half truths or less about 50% of the time.
Should you trust either one?
Hell no!
The US government has shown itself completely incapable of limiting speech in a reasonable manner for decades. McCarthyism, cracking down on Civil Rights, Viet Nam War protests, the PMRC (Pornrock!)stuff of the eighties, the various Ag-Gag laws, Police as oppressed group, and many more.
The most recent attempts to clamp down on free speech come from our local total shill, Andrew Cuomo. “If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you. . . . If you sanction Israel, New York will sanction you, period.” It should be noted that Boycotts are protected speech.
I think there are good arguments to be made about limiting speech that could led to harm. With that said, I think or political class has shown time and time again that they are totally untrustworthy in making those decisions. The only groups they seem willing to protect is big business, foreign governments, and corrupt police. Until that situation changes, it would be very foolish to give them anymore power!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we assume the government is only going to be corrupt, terrible, nasty and ignore everything in the rule book, this discussion is completely useless. However, it's not there quite yet. What they are not allowed to do IS STILL IMPORTANT to them.
Which means "don't give them any further leeway in choosing what to protect and not in speech" still holds serious weight. If we ignore the concept of imminent harm, and let them expand the territory of "stuff people will know after the fact if what they said was protected speech" into ANY sort of speech, so long as they can consider it "harmful", then that is just what they will do. As brutally as they can, in service of their own interests.
I am sorry, but it's a stupid idea to work on furthering censorship at this point in time. It usually is. Only, now it's catastrophic.
Find something better to do with your time than thinking up ways to get at hate speech.
Find something better to do with your time than thinking up ways to get at hate speech.
No.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing wrong with fighting against hate speech.
However, we should stop giving government more tools to go after people who exercise constitutional rights. Getting tough on speech crime is just going to be used the way the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" were used. Making more things crimes are just going to allow the police and courts to victimize more poor and minorities.
I would like people to take on the responsibility of maintaining civil discourse, and do it in every interaction. Asking the government to force their version onto people is realistically doomed to failure because the government does not place your interests above the interests of the ultra wealthy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling such a thing would end up being like the simple majority for senate confirmations rule: a great idea when the party you favor is in power, but not so much when the one that isn't, is.
Just got back from the second meeting of the newly formed New Hampshire branch of the Democratic Socialists of America meeting. About thirty people, none of whom I had ever seen before, all of whom had joined since the election. They didn't really have any idea what they wanted to do, and listened, jaws agape, as we rattled off all the stuff going on in the area.
Anyway, we had heard a lot about some fabled "left-wing" of DSA that was anti-Democratic Party, but it wasn't much in evidence tonight. They told us to get involved with our local branches of the DP, any one who shows up can take over, etc., etc. I turned to one of the few people in the room who has been active for more than four months (Green Party, like us, not DSA) and said, "Just walk in and take over the Democratic Party, huh? You ever hear that before, Keith?" "Yeah," he deadpanned. "I've heard that before."
One of their members in attendance, but from Boston, who has been in for six months, piped up and said, "Well, actually, in Boston we don't work in the Democrats, we do other stuff, but in New Hampshire, unique opportunity, blah blah blah" and later returned to some vague, anti-Democrat comments. I ran straight over and threw some names at her and, of course, it turned out that she is a protege of Ex-Mrs. Comrade.
Anyways, it was fun. They all thought we were great, we invited them to our Anti-President's Day Black History Event (it's not even on President's Day, that's how anti it is) and hopefully we'll recruit some of the more promising ones.
I know I've always maintained an anti-anything to do with the Democratic Party position on these boards, but I've changed my mind: All you "take the party back" Democrats should go join DSA so I can recruit your friends.
|
This is a good summation of the 2018 picture for democrats. Can they keep the momentum of activism going? Two years can be a long time to wait.
"I've had the biggest electoral victory since reagan...
In the most important way he did. He had a far more major victory than Reagan. Not the one with the vote numbers, the one with the result that the Republicans for the first time in decades seized control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House. And they're poised to capture the Supreme Court when his supreme court nominee is vetted in. In addition, Republicans have the bulk of power in state legislatures and governorship. The Democrats now are truly the party in the woods that they thought they'd be seeing the Republicans in because they never saw the axe that had been swinging their way since before Brexit.
The Republicans now are in a position to enact their policies like they've never been in before. And if you think the Democrat ship is taking on water now, watch it list in 2018. The John McCains of the Republican Party aren't your friends, no matter what they may think of SOME of Trump's policies. The only thing that made McCain upset about Trump was the perceived slight on the military.. He's pretty much onboard with everything else policy wise that Trump and the Republicans are going to steamroll though.
Victory is about who's got the power when the dust settles, not the margin of votes on your side.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing wrong with fighting against hate speech.
However, we should stop giving government more tools to go after people who exercise constitutional rights. Getting tough on speech crime is just going to be used the way the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" were used. Making more things crimes are just going to allow the police and courts to victimize more poor and minorities.
I would like people to take on the responsibility of maintaining civil discourse, and do it in every interaction. Asking the government to force their version onto people is realistically doomed to failure because the government does not place your interests above the interests of the ultra wealthy.
Again, your examples of things prove the government has used behavior influenced by hate speech to oppress the people in an era when hate speech was not outlawed.
Let's look at how this works. Hate speech about African-Americans is used to justify the war on drugs and permanent incarceration of young black and brown men. Their incarceration is then used to justify their disenfranchisement. This disenfranchisement means they cannot participate in the political system in a meaningful way. Hate speech is being used to strip the political power of oppressed classes in this country, reducing their ability to speak up and represent themselves. Hate speech is being used to take people's free speech from them.
There are numerous Western free democratic style countries with anti-hate speech laws. Germany is a wonderful example. Perhaps you can give me examples of how the German government has abused it's anti-hate speech laws to abuse their people.
The oft-repeated line you guys are saying is that the government will use a law like this to do X, Y, and Z, but the examples of X, Y and Z are all things the government is already doing. If the government is already literally doing the thing your worried about, then it cannot possibly be a consequence of the thing I'm suggesting, because consequences cannot precede their causes.
Hate speech has been damaging our country for centuries and has been used to oppress millions of people for generations. You cannot get rid of hate speech's consequences without getting rid of hate speech.
If you're fine with people justifying racism and perpetuating it, you should defend people's rights to spread hate speech. Because when you defend hate speech, that is what you are doing. Defending hate speech takes free speech away from those targeted by hate speech.
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?
Hee hee!
I did the same google search, Citizen Freire, and I bet I found the same article. IIRC, he was prosecuted under a different section of the German criminal code abridging speech.
Running Subtheme: Communist Witches
Article shared by a communist witch about an anarchist witch's feud with another witch, but what kind I don't know, but I'm sure you guys do.
Two Of The Greatest Comic Book Writers Have Been In An Occult War For 25 Years
Article I read said that the hate speech thing was Section 130 and the tv host under Section 103.
At first, I figured it was just because it was an article about free speech in Germany, but now I'm wondering if the latter is just a typo. Anyone?
EDIT: Different EDIT EDIT: sections. One about hate speech and one about insulting foreign leaders.
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?The case was dropped back in October. Prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence of crime to proceed.
funnily enough, being taken to court is expensive and punishing all on its own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?
Lets see...
1) he wasn't charged under hate speech laws
2) the charges have been dropped
3) the specific law he was being charged under is potentially being repealed
For all the hand wringing about how hate speech laws are oppressive, it would seem that you might find better evidence than that.
By the way, the law he was charged under dates to 1871 and bears no relation to the anti-hate speech laws passed after WW2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?The case was dropped back in October. Prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence of crime to proceed.
being arrested for something you said is not cool either. I mean it's "only" armed people locking you up, strip searching you, throwing you in a cell with criminals, and threatening to send you to jail for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?The case was dropped back in October. Prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence of crime to proceed.being arrested for something you said is not cool either. I mean it's "only" armed people locking you up, strip searching you, throwing you in a cell with criminals, and threatening to send you to jail for a long time.
This is a hugely important point since processes and outcomes are not the same. Intimidation, dissent-quelling, and silencing can be achieved through process regardless of outcomes. Kairos is a thing.
Guys, take the First Amendment talk to another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, take the First Amendment talk to another thread.
I feel like its pretty relevant given that someone in thread thinks tough hate speech legislation should be a plank of the democratic party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a hugely important point since processes and outcomes are not the same. Intimidation, dissent-quelling, and silencing can be achieved through process regardless of outcomes. Kairos is a thing.Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?The case was dropped back in October. Prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence of crime to proceed.being arrested for something you said is not cool either. I mean it's "only" armed people locking you up, strip searching you, throwing you in a cell with criminals, and threatening to send you to jail for a long time.
Again, lack of anti-hate speech laws doesn't prevent this from happening. 45's EO banning immigration from several countries was used to justify locking people, even though there wasn't a law instructing them to do so AND courts ruled that they should stop doing it.
Of course, I'm sure there's no link between 45's actions and hate speech. I mean, that would just be silly to imagine that hate speech denouncing a 1 billion people as terrorists could possibly lead to law enforcement locking people up from that group with no probable cause linking them to terrorism. A relation between those actions and hate speech is unthinkable.
Well, I don't know if that's an accurate assessment of Irontruth's position, I think he was just filling in a lull in activity on the thread to tell us about what he's been reading up on about hate speech for some paper he's writing.
Although, I do like the idea of using it against politicians using hate speech to contribute to the war on drugs and mass incarceration. Could we do so ex post facto?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, your examples of things prove the government has used behavior influenced by hate speech to oppress the people in an era when hate speech was not outlawed.
... more ...
The oft-repeated line you guys are saying is that the government will use a law like this to do X, Y, and Z, but the examples of X, Y and Z are all things the government is already doing. If the government is already literally doing the thing your worried about, then it cannot possibly be a consequence of the thing I'm suggesting,...
And what you are proposing - creating more criminal offenses for them to charge people with - are just going to make it easier to jail people, and for a longer time.
And the people saying racist garbage, from Hillay's "Super Predators" to Trumps 'rapists bringing crime and guns' never have to worry about this stuff, nor does anyone with a good lawyer. What you are proposing is only going to be a crime for poor people, not the wealthy and well connected. At best you are just going to punish the powerless, while the powerful will just have another tool in the extensive Screw-the-Poor tool chest.
Again, speaking out against hate speech is great! However, if you really want to make a real difference, focus on pushing for punishment for existing crimes, not making more actions criminal.
Note: In my county, there was an incident where the police showed up, called a retired Marine veteran the N-word, and then proceed to murder him. Like many such incidents, they were never indicted by the DA, although they killed the guy in cold blood. If they are not going to charge a cop who murders someone, what do you think the odds of them getting charged with saying the wrong thing?
EDIT Opps! Sorry KC. This will be my last "hate speech" post in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote:
Again, speaking out against hate speech is great! However, if you really want to make a real difference, focus on pushing for punishment for existing crimes, not making more actions criminal.You wrote:
Well, of course. Laws never punish the rich and powerful and are only used against the poor, therefore we should just abolish laws.
Please forgive me for failing to understanding your point.
Well, I don't know if that's an accurate assessment of Irontruth's position, I think he was just filling in a lull in activity on the thread to tell us about what he's been reading up on about hate speech for some paper he's writing.
Although, I do like the idea of using it against politicians using hate speech to contribute to the war on drugs and mass incarceration. Could we do so ex post facto?
The first part was definitely part of it. The more I see people's arguments against hate speech laws though, the more I'm convinced we need them, or at least to increase our awareness of what is hate speech and what effects it has.
I don't like using new laws against prior actions, it generally doesn't sit well with me to change the rules and then punish people for things done before the change. I would definitely use it going forward though.
Guys, take the First Amendment talk to another thread.
I stand by this being fully relevant. Many voters maybe didn't condone 45's rhetoric, but they implicitly looked the other way when they voted for him. Understanding how hate speech works, what it does and how to combat it could help in future elections. I don't mean this just as an electoral math, try to swing things sort of way, but actually moving the country to a better place sort of way.
The future of successful political party cannot be "how do we win next time?" It has to be "how do we make this a better place?"
I think working towards a less bigoted country fulfills the second question. You have to have ideas that will make people's lives better. I think this is one of them.
Well, of course. Laws never punish the rich and powerful and are only used against the poor, therefore we should just abolish laws.Again, your examples of things prove the government has used behavior influenced by hate speech to oppress the people in an era when hate speech was not outlawed.
... more ...
The oft-repeated line you guys are saying is that the government will use a law like this to do X, Y, and Z, but the examples of X, Y and Z are all things the government is already doing. If the government is already literally doing the thing your worried about, then it cannot possibly be a consequence of the thing I'm suggesting,...And what you are proposing - creating more criminal offenses for them to charge people with - are just going to make it easier to jail people, and for a longer time.
And the people saying racist garbage, from Hillay's "Super Predators" to Trumps 'rapists bringing crime and guns' never have to worry about this stuff, nor does anyone with a good lawyer. What you are proposing is only going to be a crime for poor people, not the wealthy and well connected. At best you are just going to punish the powerless, while the powerful will just have another tool in the extensive Screw-the-Poor tool chest.
Again, speaking out against hate speech is great! However, if you really want to make a real difference, focus on pushing for punishment for existing crimes, not making more actions criminal.
I'm willing to live under your suggested legal system, but I prefer the extant legal system of Demesne Dice, where the rich and powerful administer the laws.
I wrote:Again, speaking out against hate speech is great! However, if you really want to make a real difference, focus on pushing for punishment for existing crimes, not making more actions criminal.You wrote:Well, of course. Laws never punish the rich and powerful and are only used against the poor, therefore we should just abolish laws.Please forgive me for failing to understanding your point.
It's the same argument for not having gun control. Gun Control laws are useless because criminals don't follow the law.
Laws protecting minorities are useless, because criminal governments will only use them to punish minorities.
You and the NRA, going to the same logic classes.