Page 23 of 39

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:24 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings chownah,
chownah wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:21 am
If I am wrong then bring an excerpt of the speech showing pai's mention of a partisan political issue.
I don't care for your games, chownah. How about you back off and stop sealioning? I just told you the partisan aspect is of no interest to me.

Bye.

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:38 am
by chownah
This post is not in reply to retrofuturist.

In pai's speech he said, "Everything nowadays is political. Everything. … This view that politics-is-all is often made worse by social media,". This is exactly the issue I have raised about how breitbart politicizes issues in a partisan way...even issues which are not of a partisan nature. Breitbart really is more of a social media site than a news site. Breitbart is a quintessential example of "This view that politics-is-all is often made worse by social media".

chownah

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:54 am
by L.N.
retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:21 pm
Like the author, I am pleased that hysterical moral accusations are losing their power as a means by which to suppress the speech of those with whom someone disagrees. The potency of such shrieking accusations and their associated epithets has suffered in recent years due to how transparent it has become to the average citizen that they are being rampantly abused in cynical attempts to gain social, economic or political advantage.
Wow. This is the first time I have opened or looked at this Topic, and now I have a better sense of why there may be so much resistance to various Topics regarding Right Speech.

There must be some middle ground where people can speak with one another in a mutually respectful way without assuming that someone is either (i) hysterically PC, or (ii) needlessly insensitive.
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:35 pm
The purpose of this topic is to discuss the prevalence of trends, actions, ideologies and policies which are a threat to free speech in the 21st century.

The threats in scope for this discussion are inclusive of threats that arise from all sides of politics, from all ideologies, and from all groups and institutions.

I will share some examples soon, but I wanted to keep specific examples out of the "original post" in order to avoid confusion about the parameters of this topic.
I haven't read through this entire Topic, so apologies if this is rehashing, but one significant threat to free speech is when the President of the United States calls for NFL players to be fired for taking a knee during the national anthem, which they do as a form of protesting racial inequality, and when Trump also falsely accuses them of protesting the flag (nobody is protesting the flag). When the political establishment begins going after people for expressive conduct, it is a threat to freedom of speech.

There are other examples of modern threats to free speech which originate when those who are accustomed to being entitled feel discomfort when asked to treat others with dignity and respect.
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:49 am
It just so happens that in 2017, the majority of political and religious censorship (and associated threats of punishment) are done in support of left-wing ideals.
Nonsense.
So-called "hate speech" violations are a good contemporary example of this.
"Hate speech" means fighting words which constitute a racial or ethnic epithet, without social value, which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. Even if the law protects such speech, it is still not the kind of speech we should commend or promote. It is not a "hysterical moral accusation" to call such speech what it is: hate speech.
... My concern is authoritarian censorship in general, regardless of whether it's left-wing or right-wing, thus it's not a "partisan" concern.
What is wrong with self-regulation and self-control? What is wrong with someone speaking up to say, those words are offensive?
Therefore, you getting in a twist over "partisan" "weaponization" is you arguing with yourself once more. As such, I'm not interested in your urge to quarrel.
Wow. Getting very personal about a Member who happens to disagree with you. So if someone disagrees with you, it reflects a state of mind inclined toward "quarreling"? If someone disagrees with you, it is "getting in a twist"? But if you disagree with someone else, no problem, and no further response is invited? Hope this comment doesn't cause you to become quarrelsome and get into a twist.
For what it's worth, a link was provided to Breitbart primarily because Breitbart will actually report on these matters, whereas the majority of mainstream media organisations are advocates of censorship in support of left-wing and globalist ideals (and protecting themselves from "conspiracy theories" about them being sexual predators etc.), and are therefore far less motivated to voluntarily bring attention to such matters.
Utter nonsense.
They would much rather manipulate than draw attention to the manipulate.
Who is "they"? What kind of nonsense are you trying to put forth regarding traditional news sources?

From the ridiculous blog entry linked above:
This attitude includes, but is not at all limited to, the imbecilic concept of microaggressions, according to which a person may be “offensive” and guilty of “aggression” even when conscientiously trying to be polite ....
That sounds mighty familiar to me, after witnessing people who conscientiously try to be polite only to be vilified by right-wing conspiracy theorists.

I am sure you will love and agree with the following twisted viewpoints:“DANGEROUSLY VAGUE” – NEW US LAW BLURS THE LINE BETWEEN HATE SPEECH AND HATE CRIME.

Unfortunate when hate speech is given priority over common civility.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:21 am
by Pseudobabble
L.N. wrote: "Hate speech" means fighting words which constitute a racial or ethnic epithet, without social value, which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. Even if the law protects such speech, it is still not the kind of speech we should commend or promote. It is not a "hysterical moral accusation" to call such speech what it is: hate speech.
"Hate Speech" is a nonsense concept. We (and most places) already have laws against incitement to violence, which make no reference to the content of the speech, except insofar as it is judged to be incitement to violence. The designation of 'hate speech' implies, since it makes reference to content, that there is an absolute scale of 'moral' qualities, and that the beliefs behind the 'hate speech' are lower on the scale than the beliefs of the designator. This is directly contrary to the principles of free speech, tolerance for the ideals of others, and equality under the law. To perform the reductio, it is as though we were to designate certain colours of car 'hateful', and make our judgements on that basis, rather than mechanical safety.

Further, what is 'hateful', and what is not, is in the 'eye of the beholder', so to speak, and not the one who says the words. This is not to absolve the speaker of the responsibility of thinking through the impact of their words, but merely to point out that if we leave the designation of morally unacceptable speech only to the listener, there is an asymmetry in their influence over any ultimate judgement. In effect, if we say that it is the listener who defines what is 'hateful' or offensive, we remove the means of distinguishing formally between statements ('this speech spoken by Nazis is incitement to violence', 'that speech spoken by Black Panthers is not incitement to violence, merely nasty'), leaving only our trust of the listener's motivation. The legal system bequeathed to us makes distinctions on the basis of formal individual equality under the law, not the particular and contingent preferences of those involved.


So, as regards both 'hate speakers' and sensitive listeners:
L.N. wrote: What is wrong with self-regulation and self-control?

After all, there's a world of difference between hearing an unpleasant statement, and a punch in the mouth.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:05 am
by Mr Man
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:21 am
"Hate Speech" is a nonsense concept. We (and most places) already have laws against incitement to violence, which make no reference to the content of the speech, except insofar as it is judged to be incitement to violence.
Hi Pseudobabble
We also have "hate speech" laws.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 am
by Pseudobabble
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:05 am
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:21 am
"Hate Speech" is a nonsense concept. We (and most places) already have laws against incitement to violence, which make no reference to the content of the speech, except insofar as it is judged to be incitement to violence.
Hi Pseudobabble
We also have "hate speech" laws.
Yes, and they are a chimerical farce, since they vitiate the framework position of formal individual equality under the law. My point is that if you have laws against incitement to violence, the only thing 'hate speech laws' are protecting is people's feelings, which, frankly, are ultimately the responsibility of their bearers.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:29 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mr. Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:05 am

We also have "hate speech" laws.
Thank you for bringing to our attention one of the contemporary threats to freedom of speech.

Will Germany's new law kill free speech online?

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:08 am
by Sam Vara
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 am
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:05 am
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:21 am
"Hate Speech" is a nonsense concept. We (and most places) already have laws against incitement to violence, which make no reference to the content of the speech, except insofar as it is judged to be incitement to violence.
Hi Pseudobabble
We also have "hate speech" laws.
Yes, and they are a chimerical farce, since they vitiate the framework position of formal individual equality under the law. My point is that if you have laws against incitement to violence, the only thing 'hate speech laws' are protecting is people's feelings, which, frankly, are ultimately the responsibility of their bearers.
Yes, I entirely agree. It is also worth noting that police forces concentrating on eradicating emotions takes resources away from real crimes in the real world.
https://www.turningpoint.news/online-ha ... e-britain/

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:46 am
by Mr Man
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 am
My point is that if you have laws against incitement to violence, the only thing 'hate speech laws' are protecting is people's feelings, which, frankly, are ultimately the responsibility of their bearers.
Hi Pseudobabble
What do you make of this?

'Traveling Butts' instagrammers arrested in Thailand over nude photo at historic temple
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... ic-temple/

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:52 am
by Mr Man
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:08 am

It is also worth noting that police forces concentrating on eradicating emotions takes resources away from real crimes in the real world.
Hi Sam
If people are being arrested/charged/convicted I guess it means it is a real crime (according to the law) and real world? Is the internet not part of the real world?

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:21 am
by Sam Vara
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:52 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:08 am

It is also worth noting that police forces concentrating on eradicating emotions takes resources away from real crimes in the real world.
Hi Sam
If people are being arrested/charged/convicted I guess it means it is a real crime (according to the law) and real world? Is the internet not part of the real world?
According to the law.


Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:25 am
by binocular
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 am
Yes, and they are a chimerical farce, since they vitiate the framework position of formal individual equality under the law. My point is that if you have laws against incitement to violence, the only thing 'hate speech laws' are protecting is people's feelings, which, frankly, are ultimately the responsibility of their bearers.
I think 'hate speech laws' are protecting only the feelings and interests of people in positions of power, at the expense of the feelings and interests of those with less power.

I think 'hate speech laws' are a relatively new, fancy way of those in positions of power to exert this power and to secure their positions of power.

I think 'hate speech laws' are a way of saying, "I cast the first stone, therefore, I am innocent."

And it takes hate speech to uphold hate speech laws ...

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:49 am
by Pseudobabble
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:46 am
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 am
My point is that if you have laws against incitement to violence, the only thing 'hate speech laws' are protecting is people's feelings, which, frankly, are ultimately the responsibility of their bearers.
Hi Pseudobabble
What do you make of this?

'Traveling Butts' instagrammers arrested in Thailand over nude photo at historic temple
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... ic-temple/

Just off the cuff.. this isn't what I would call a 'crime' despite what the Thai laws might say. I'd say the Thai's have every right to be pissed off at this sort of thing, just as we would if random foreigners were taking nude selfies at the Cenotaph. From the perspective of the whole hate speech thing - I understand why you counterpose this; while I don't think these people should be charged with a crime (again, whatever the law might actually be), they certainly deserve whatever social approbation and ostracisation the Thais heap on them.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:52 am
by Pseudobabble
binocular wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:25 am
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 am
Yes, and they are a chimerical farce, since they vitiate the framework position of formal individual equality under the law. My point is that if you have laws against incitement to violence, the only thing 'hate speech laws' are protecting is people's feelings, which, frankly, are ultimately the responsibility of their bearers.
I think 'hate speech laws' are protecting only the feelings and interests of people in positions of power, at the expense of the feelings and interests of those with less power.

I think 'hate speech laws' are a relatively new, fancy way of those in positions of power to exert this power and to secure their positions of power.

I think 'hate speech laws' are a way of saying, "I cast the first stone, therefore, I am innocent."

And it takes hate speech to uphold hate speech laws ...
Not sure I entirely agree, but I'm with the gist. I rather think the people in power use such laws to pander to the wishes of the electorate, which are filtered through a media which, by construction, prefers to report sensationally, resulting in 'moral panics' over things which are not terribly problematic.

I'm certain however, that the narrative sustained by this dynamic is perpetuated by the power elite, because it gives them a 'moral tool' with which to justify the increase in pointless laws.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:18 pm
by chownah
Let's look at societies where hate speech was not only allowed but encouraged.....where should we look? Germany? Cambodia? IS? Alabama? Mississippi? Arkansas?

Giving free rein to hate speech.....what could go wrong?
Sticks and stones may break my bones but hate speech never harmed anyone?.....I guess....don't know for sure though......
chownah