RE: Double standards on freedom of speech
January 9, 2015 at 2:26 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2015 at 2:42 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: We've already had this discussion, I don't care about the American concept of freedom of expression... I have my own.
And I profoundly disagree with it.
(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Also, if I'm not mistaken, censorship implies "correcting" what was done before or after it factually happened, making it "right" - In the case of hate speech, no one will censor it directly, no one will delete videos, records or evidence that the speech took part... You will simply be accused of a crime. Forbidding incentive of crimes is not censorship, it's legal decency.
You're mistaken. Prior restraint of speech is censorship. Changing it after the fact is revision.
As for forbidding "incentive of crime" -- I assume you mean inciting them -- well, that's not Holocaust denial; no one is saying, there was no Holocaust, so you should go commit genocide -- and if they did, I'd be fine with the government taking action. Indeed, here in America, threatening to kick someone's ass is a crime, called simple assault, and I think that's valid. However -- "I hate whites" is hate speech, but it doesn't urge any action on anyone. You're conflating the two issues. Of course, if someone said "let's kill all the Jews" I would be in favor of taking action against that speaker.
(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Regardless, I admit the line is very thin between what's objectionable or not. I personally am disgusted by blasphemy laws. But I do not support the government taking no action when it comes to active activism on behalf of racism, homophobia, totalitarianism, etc.
So, you don't mind being able to express your views which offend others, but you're against others speaking views which offend you?
(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Here is my justification in a quote of an author:
Quote: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - Karl Popper”
Except I haven't argued for "unlimited tolerance".
(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Do you understand, Parkers Tan? sometimes simple rational argument isn't enough to defeat active groups... Sometimes they'll pick guns and engage in a revolution
You need not be condescending, thanks. I'm not sure where you got the idea that being against hate-speech laws means that I'm against taking action to quell violent groups. Would you mind quoting and linking to that post of mine?
