Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on October 06, 2015, 10:48:15 am
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bahar-mustafa-charged-with-sending-malicious-message-after-tweeting-kill-all-white-men-a6683241.html
Because I have a well known bias that might lead one to false conclusions about my motivations I will not do my typical "drive by" post style as there is a particular, possibly non-obvious to those who do not know me that well, point here that I take issue with, and there is a very obvious direction this thread could go (and lets face it, eventually will) go but before that happens I am hoping for it to go a different way at least for a little while.
Bahar Mustafa has a right as a human to be able to communicate her thoughts and ideas. I absolutely think she is a horrible detestable person, sexist, racist, teaparty of the left, I put her in the same bubble as the westboro baptists, that is how I feel about her and I mention it only to put what I am saying into a particular context. Just like all of them, she has a right to say what she wants to say, a right to Freedom of Speech. Now the UK government has a difference of opinion with me on this subject, but just because something is a law does not make it right. I do not fear her words because I have a right to freedom of speech as well and can argue against them, I do not fear them because I think I am right and a fair discussion of her positions will show me to be right to reasonable people. I think penalizing people because of what they say, especially by law, only shows that you fear what they have to say, or you are merely vindictive. This is bull****, and I am personally not going to stand for it, though there is little I can actually do, other than start a conversation about it with people who maybe can. Any restriction of speech hurts everyone, any time you make a club to silence your enemies you make a club for your enemies to silence you. Truth can only be found by all options being available and debated and bad ideas argued against, not silenced.
I say again, this be some ****ing bull**** right here.
-
Where would you draw the line? What kind of endorsement, practical tips or other incitement would you require to be added to that message that you'd want it to be illegal? You didn't really say anything about that, yet the only thing people disagree about is where exactly to draw the line and why.
-
typing or speaking into a machine with voice recognition a command that will cause it to cause harm to someone else,
giving an order to a subordinate to commit a crime
never communication of ideas, thoughts, feelings or desires. I don't care how upsetting to how many people. in fact the more unpleasent the more important it is that it is protected because popular speech is never threatened and never going to improve anything.
it is disturbing to me how after a mere 2-300 years this has become controversial in the last 10. this is one of the greatest progressions of civilization ever and lately it looks like people are starting to try to dismantle it.
-
I'm with you here. Unfortunately, only the US has a vision for Speech that is remotely like what you suggest, which means that we in the rest of the so-called "free" world are ****ing screwed...
-
not if you make some noise and get some laws passed/repealed.
you know, as long as that isn't also illegal.
-
Okay, she's claimed that she's received rape and death threats. Should anyone be charged for those?
BTW: I think the fact that we're dealing with a racist and sexist diversity officer is pretty ****ing hilarious in and of itself.
-
no
BTW: I agree with you but if we want to talk about that it should probably be in a separate thread.
-
no
Wait what why?
-
Okay, she's claimed that she's received rape and death threats. Should anyone be charged for those?
Considering they're probably as meaningless as the hashtag she used herself, in isolation no. If an individual is doing it consistently, you might have a case for civil rather than criminal harassment. If they're doing it in person or state their intention and then approach her physically you'd probably have escalated enough to warrant criminal charges.
Wait what why?
Because a bunch of assholes being assholes on the internet isn't a criminal matter? I mean, it's speech. It's even threatening speech. It probably makes people feel very uncomfortable. (It sure makes me very uncomfortable.) But...where's the mens rhea? Are you saying they are statements of actual intention?
No. They're assholes screaming unto the void. Maybe thinking they're clever too.
Being an asshole isn't a criminal offense. Screaming isn't one either. Thinking they're clever just loops back to being assholes.
The irony here is that if you think their threats are serious you pretty much have to think that her use of an ironic hashtag is equally serious, because both of them aren't real statements of intent.
-
I agree with Bobboau, she is a despicable person but this should not be a criminal matter at all. If there is one thing where US justice system is clearly superior over European ones, it is first amendment and resulting strong protections for freedom of speech. I dont really feel like a free person with these kind of oppressive laws being on the books (even tough they are almost never enforced).
Okay, she's claimed that she's received rape and death threats. Should anyone be charged for those?
Not unless there is reasonable belief that those threats were actually serious and would result in her death. Which they most likely were not, being nothing more than internet trolling. So no, nobody should be charged.
-
why?
Why should they? She was talked at. (Actually, no, I think this refers to Twitter (or email) so she was typed at.... (ACTUALLY, now that I think about it I'm still wrong, she subscribed to a service that she pulled messages from, on which that other people published messages in such a way that she would eventually get them.), but whatever same difference)
What crime (including things that are not crimes but that you think should be) took place? Crimespeek? "Cyberviolence"?
-
Oh, this crazy *****? I remember hearing about #killallwhitemen a while back and its insane pusher.
I kinda find it funny that not only is she a sexist, racist bigot, and genuine kook, she got foisted on her ownpetard.
Do I agree with absolute free speech? Yes. Do I think she courted danger? Also yes. Do I think this is utterly hilarious? **** yes.
Same stuff her ilk is pushing is pretty ironic when one of them gets ensnared by their own bull**** factory. Or in simpleton, what comes around goes around. American courts have made it clear a few times that in order to file proper charges, there has to be merit in the threat - and sooner or later the UK will have draw its own line in the sand.
If undesirable forms of free speech are criminalized, it can go both ways, which is why I find cyberviolence a funny thing - many of the trolls and dip****s advocating to control free speech quickly realize THEY will put on the chopper's block as well.
-
Try to keep the schadenfreude to a minimum, please.
-
Oh, this crazy *****? I remember hearing about #killallwhitemen a while back and its insane pusher.
I kinda find it funny that not only is she a sexist, racist bigot, and genuine kook, she got foisted on her ownpetard.
It's not who you think it is, now hush.
-
Don't worry guys it's okay, she's not really racist!
Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
-
if she is racist or not is not relevant to the discussion, because if she is right or wrong is not relevant to the discussion.
her tribe is not important.
we are all human, we all have a right to have our perspectives communicated, and we all have a right to be told we are full of ****.
-
The best rule of thumb I can think of when it comes to free speech is "your freedom ends where someone else's begins", so in this case I would say these tweets, although offensive, do not infringe upon anyone else's freedom. If she began to utter things that began to incite violence, then we can talk about charging her.
-
so her freedom is dependent on other people's behavior? I don't think I like that at all. All I have to do to make speech illegal is start enacting violence as a reaction to that speech, or radicalize other people (including people who agree with it) to do it for me. that is not behavior you want to reinforce. and how is she supposed to be responsible for other people anyway?
No, people acting violently are responsible for themselves, not people who they agree (or disagree) with.
-
That's not quite what I meant. What I mean is when you actions start to cause harm to others or violate their rights is when they should be criminally chargeable. So an obvious example is murder, which takes away someones, well life.
Inciting violence is a bit of a grey area, in this case I agree with you, she should not have been charged.
An example where say a radical muslim is deliberately radicalizing and and inciting others to carry out terrorist acts, that would require some kind of action on the part of the state against the individual inciting these activities, as well as the people being incited of course.
-
These threads always seem to have the implicit assumption that an American style absolute, untouchable right to free speech is both normal and desirable. It's not. Very few countries, including civilised western democracies, don't have legislation against things like hate speech, and as a resident of one of those countries, I'm glad of it (as are the majority of people in my country, if recent debates around the racial discrimination act are any indicator).
I have no sympathy for this woman. She broke the law, she's been charged, she should have her day in court. Is entirely possible she'll be acquitted, or have no (or no significant) penalty given. Magistrates and judges have that discretion, as they rightly should.
This users that free speech should be absolute and untouchable seems ludicrously simplistic from my perspective.
On an unrelated note, I really hope she takes this opportunity to grandstand, and bust out that "You can't be racist against white men!" rubbish in front of a magistrate, especially if that magistrate happens to be a white man. The smackdown (on several levels, legal and relevance moat significantly) might potentially be quite amusing. :)
-
That's not quite what I meant. What I mean is when you actions start to cause harm to others or violate their rights is when they should be criminally chargeable. So an obvious example is murder, which takes away someones, well life.
Inciting violence is a bit of a grey area, in this case I agree with you, she should not have been charged.
An example where say a radical muslim is deliberately radicalizing and and inciting others to carry out terrorist acts, that would require some kind of action on the part of the state against the individual inciting these activities, as well as the people being incited of course.
Except the talking isn't the part that takes away my rights. It's the blowing ****/people up part that does that, and that is the crime. I mean just think about the language used by Christians about how they are being persecuted by letting gays get married, have you never heard them describe masturbation as violence against one's self or homosexuality as violence against god? I mean if you are ordering a suboranant to do something you are taking on a portion of the consequences of that subordinates actions, sure, yeah, speech is involved there, ok, but that's about as far as you can take it before you start opening up the gates to your enemies. and I mean how do you define "incitement" just because you fail to incite doesn't mean you weren't trying, and you might say something that incites someone else to violence when you had no idea it was possible. In your example, ask yourself honestly what is more likely to happen, arrest for incitement of the Muslims quoting from their holy book about how unbelievers need to be 'slain wherever they are found'? or the group of non-muslims who confront them getting arrested for being racists? (because 'muslim' is a race apparently? meh, separate issue) in either case, who wins?
I mean, I honestly actually think Bahar Mustafa was inciting violence with some of the things she has said. I don't think the letter of the law is being miss-applied, I think the law it's self is utter horse ****. How other people were going to respond to her expressed contempt for other people is completely irrelevant to her right to express how she feels. I mean, lets say we go 100 years into the future and there are no racists left in the world, and we bring with us Jimbo Lee a good'ole boy from the backest of back woods Alabama. Jimbo looks around and sees nothing but mixed race people everywhere, not a single white (by his judgement) person as far as the eye can see. is the stream of hatred that flows forth from his mouth now suddenly perfectly fine and dandy just because there is not longer anyone left who might agree with him? If so doesn't that imply that speech would only possibly be illigal if it had a chance to change the world? isn't that exactly the class of speech that needs to be protected the most?
If the left weakens the right to free speech in order to clamp down on racism and bigotry, the right is going to use the same tools to clamp down on sedition and immorality, the only ones who win are those seeking power, domination, and subjugation of others. No matter who wins we all lose.
-
Black Wolf:
the idea that a government has any right to dictate what it's people can say seems primitive and backwards from my perspective.
and, thank you for your argument for American exceptionalism.
(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-07/3/12/enhanced/webdr08/enhanced-30282-1404405708-43.jpg)
-
I see your point, but I think you are partly to blame if you are deliberately inciting people to commit criminal acts. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ie it must be proven that you deliberately helped caused the heinous actions in question. I do agree it can be a slippery slope to overusing the powers of the state, but that does not mean the state has no place in all cases.
And no, Muslims are not a race, their a religion
Also
Black Wolf:
the idea that a government has any right to dictate what it's people can say seems primitive and backwards from my perspective.
and, thank you for your argument for American exceptionalism.
(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-07/3/12/enhanced/webdr08/enhanced-30282-1404405708-43.jpg)
While I disagree with Black Wolf, this is kind of obnoxious
-
yeah, I suppose it is (https://warpstorm.com/Content/Smileys/oopsie.gif). I mean, don't know, I thought it was funny. But... I guess those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I guess me and him are happy with our own native cultures take on the issue.
you'd be surprised of how often people get that race thing wrong.
There is no way that you can possibly determine if someone is inciting violence on purpose or not. they might just say something in the moment that is utterly hateful and violent without having any thoughts at all of the consequences. in order to "help cause" any criminal act, you would have to buy material used, fund, participate in, plan, or coordinate the act. those last two I can see getting a little close to speech, but would definitely fall under the giving-orders-to-subordinates case. All of these things are crimes as far as I can tell. "inspiring" it? no
-
Bahar Mustafa has a right as a human to be able to communicate her thoughts and ideas. I absolutely think she is a horrible detestable person, sexist, racist, teaparty of the left, I put her in the same bubble as the westboro baptists, that is how I feel about her and I mention it only to put what I am saying into a particular context. Just like all of them, she has a right to say what she wants to say, a right to Freedom of Speech. Now the UK government has a difference of opinion with me on this subject, but just because something is a law does not make it right. I do not fear her words because I have a right to freedom of speech as well and can argue against them, I do not fear them because I think I am right and a fair discussion of her positions will show me to be right to reasonable people. I think penalizing people because of what they say, especially by law, only shows that you fear what they have to say, or you are merely vindictive. This is bull****, and I am personally not going to stand for it, though there is little I can actually do, other than start a conversation about it with people who maybe can. Any restriction of speech hurts everyone, any time you make a club to silence your enemies you make a club for your enemies to silence you. Truth can only be found by all options being available and debated and bad ideas argued against, not silenced.
I say again, this be some ****ing bull**** right here.
Freedom of speech is one thing. Incitement to criminal activities is another, and should at least be investigated, just like criminal threats.
In other words, yes, everyone's free to say whatever they wish, but with freedom comes responsibility to not say certain things. If you say certain things, people will assume you mean them.
In this case, it would fall under "Encouraging or assisting a crime" which is one of the inchoate offenses of English law. To quote from Wiki page:
"Inchoate means "just begun" or "undeveloped", and is used in English criminal law to refer to situations where, although a substantial offence has not been committed, the defendant has taken steps to commit it, or encouraged others to do so. As in all inchoate offences, the defendant "has not himself performed the actus reus but is sufficiently close to doing so, or persuading others to do so, for the law to find it appropriate to punish him."
Additionally, it can be clearly said that the tweet saying "Kill all white men" incites or encourages people to commit crimes on a racial and gender basis. So it would also fall under "Incitement to racial hatred" and whatever legislation covers hate speech in the UK.
So in my opinion, freedom of speech is not threatened by the law enforcement taking action when a crime has been committed.
There is no way that you can possibly determine if someone is inciting violence on purpose or not. they might just say something in the moment that is utterly hateful and violent without having any thoughts at all of the consequences. in order to "help cause" any criminal act, you would have to buy material used, fund, participate in, plan, or coordinate the act. those last two I can see getting a little close to speech, but would definitely fall under the giving-orders-to-subordinates case. All of these things are crimes as far as I can tell. "inspiring" it? no
Freedom of speech also means you have a freedom to not say stupid **** that you don't mean. You also have the freedom to implicate yourself of criminal activities, and in this case, it is indeed a crime to urge people to commit criminal activities in most jurisdictions. Whether or not you really meant it.
Obviously case-by-case judgement is necessary, but the Internet - and by extension Twitter is a mass medium, and there is absolutely no way of knowing what kind of audience received that message. Who's to say someone didn't take it seriously? That is why the base assumption is to take things like these at a face value, and start an investigation on it. It is the same with bomb threats or school shooting threats - most of them are probably hoaxes, but you got to take them seriously because the one time you don't respond and it turns out to be legit, you're sort of screwed, right?
-
yes, you have the freedom to not say something, just as much as you have the freedom to say something. I mean that's sounding like some serious "gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" level logic right there, I mean honestly. if you can't say something without fear of being silenced you are having your right to free speech and expression violated.
If someone DID take it seriously, it's on "someone" not the person who lightly tapped a few buttons that let others know how she felt. Who's to say someone somewhere didn't interpret her tweets about traffic one morning as a sign from Daigon the deep one that it was time to start blowing up highway overpasses? we can't start arresting people for pre-crime, let alone second hand butterfly effect pre-crime. all this is is a tool for shutting up people you don't like. and you know I can sympathise with you, she is the westboro baptist of the left, so yeah, I'd like to shut her up too, but you can't just do that, because one of those people you just want to shut up, sooner or later, one of them is going to turn out to have been right all along and you'll never find out which one that is if you just lock up everyone who says something controversial. you need to argue that stuff, in a free and open marketplace of ideas. if you get rid of all the crazy fringe people then you never get a chance to practice your arguing skills on an easy target.
and yeah, like I said, she violated the letter and intent of a stupid law, so the 90% of your post going into detail on how she broke the rules is just flying past me in an orthogonal direction. I have no problem with you saying things giving authorities probable cause to start investigating you for having committed an actual crime, but TALKING is no such crime. how is this a crime? it could be said that those privileged man-spreaders incited her to say that by being a bunch of patriarchal misogynists. there are a great many things that could be said, and by far more of those things said than not are utter bollocks. could you, hypothetically, show me a picture of the victim of this crime? if someone says they want to kill all the brown people just watch them for a while and see if it looks like they or someone they know might make good on it, until they look like they are going to do something more than bluster let them be. if you really wanted to keep everyone safe you could drug everyone lock them into a metal cylinder and run an IV with all nutrients and fluids they'd need along with a constant stream of sedatives that keeps them unconscious for the rest of their lives, they would be very safe then.
-
Freedom of speech is one thing. Incitement to criminal activities is another, and should at least be investigated, just like criminal threats.
It is the same thing. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want, nothing more, nothing less. Hate speech laws or laws against incitement to violence by definition restrict free speech, they diminish it. You may agree with them or not, but dont try to pretend they magically do not infringe on freedom of speech when that is exactly what they do.
Countries like UK but also my own Slovakia do not have freedom of speech when it comes to some more controversial statements. Thats the reality of it, at least on paper. Whether that is good or bad is another matter.
-
Hate speech itself diminishes speech: It's a way to shut others up. Harshly.
That's always were those freedom discussions boil down to: Absolute freedom is impossible as that means giving people the freedom to curtail the freedom of others.
-
In the end, if you feel that your laws work for you, stick with them. But I don't see that many Brits complaining about this case, so I'm quite happy to see this piece of **** go to jail. If this was a case like that nonsense about blowing up an airport, I might feel something. But if your job is to promote diversity, and you've fallen foul of hate speech laws it was part of your job to understand, then I'm not really going to care.
-
The point is not that absolute freedom is desirable or reachable. The point is that you shouldn't let the governments dictate what exactly it is that you can or cannot say, for they are too much of an interested (biased) institution to ever have that power. First you say that "Hate Speech" curtails free speech, which is an incredibly vague statement of itself, impossible to verify at all. But lots of people will agree with it. Then we will demand, "Ok, what is hate speech then?", and that's where ideology kicks in and before you know it, we have all these goons telling us that racism is hate speech, but that racism is something only white people do, that criticizing feminists is "hate speech" (NO, I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3de7fj/canadian_man_facing_six_months_in_jail_for_tweets/)) and all sorts of silly nonsense that nonetheless gets into academia ... and eventually the state.
From a simple line "Hate Speech", we get into authocratic dystopias very fast. The tendency is for these dystopias to creep in. That's why all our vigilance should be towards THAT, and not that boogey monster of "Hate Speech" that 99% of the time, it just ain't so.
-
Except that the thing is, unless you do have absolute freedom, you do have to draw the line somewhere. European countries prefer to have a certain set of things you might say result in criminal prosecutions. That is exactly the same as the US. It's just that the UK for instance has added a couple of extra things.
What you're doing here is making a slippery slope argument when you are already on the slope. If someone is further down the slope but the gradient is the same, they're not any more likely to slide into autocratic dystopias any more than you are.
-
You're not going to start misreading and misrepresenting what I say again, are you? What I said was literally acknowledging that the slippery slope is unavoidable. What I added was that the onus of all of us, the real concern we as citizens and netizens should have is to prevent it to slide more and more towards authocracy and authoritarianism by a growing "interpretation" of what "hate speech" is by the Law that we are all under scrutiny from.
Come on, don't start this **** again.
e: To clarify to all of those who need help in reading what I said, I acknowledge the slippery slope is real and unavoidable. That is, on one extreme we have 1984, in the other we have Really Hateful Speeches curbing everyone else from saying what they want. Both extremes are bad, and I hereby acknowledge the conceptual existence of both, and that we reside somewhere in the middle, much unlike the larger parts of the world, which are much more autocratic than this part of the world. My point is that the current threats are against Speech and therefore that's where our attention must focus on. I did not say that, because we should focus on this part of the problem that "the other part" does not exist.
If I'm going to be misrepresented regarding this ****, I'll ****ing bail out again.
-
The point is not that absolute freedom is desirable or reachable. The point is that you shouldn't let the governments dictate what exactly it is that you can or cannot say, for they are too much of an interested (biased) institution to ever have that power. First you say that "Hate Speech" curtails free speech, which is an incredibly vague statement of itself, impossible to verify at all. But lots of people will agree with it. Then we will demand, "Ok, what is hate speech then?", and that's where ideology kicks in and before you know it, we have all these goons telling us that racism is hate speech, but that racism is something only white people do, that criticizing feminists is "hate speech" (NO, I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3de7fj/canadian_man_facing_six_months_in_jail_for_tweets/))
You may not be, but it's quite clear that other people are. You link to an obviously slanted website linking to an obvious slanted website quoting an obviously slanted defense laywer of an obviously slanted man who may or may not be a harasser (currently in court, so...) - All of them with the intent of ensuring that they are can not be held accountable for the awfull **** people utter on the internet (because what is the internet coming to! (http://wondermark.com/1k71/)).
-
Hate speech itself diminishes speech: It's a way to shut others up. Harshly.
What? I dont agree with this absurd statement at all. Hate speech does not shut others up, "victims" of hate speech can speak up just like anyone else, heck, they are more likely to do so than if there was no hate being spread against them in the first place. The only way to curtail the freedom of others when it comes to speech is by censorship. You know, the very thing that hate speech laws are and absolute free speech is the opposite of.
-
Except that the thing is, unless you do have absolute freedom, you do have to draw the line somewhere. European countries prefer to have a certain set of things you might say result in criminal prosecutions. That is exactly the same as the US. It's just that the UK for instance has added a couple of extra things.
It is not just a couple of extra things. US laws against freedom of speech are very specific and narrow and it is pretty hard to violate them merely by speech. On the other hand, UK hate speech laws are incredibly broad, at least on paper. There is a slippery slope and we are all on it somewhere, but UK is a lot lower than the US for sure.
-
Which is exactly why I mentioned the gradient.
You're not going to start misreading and misrepresenting what I say again, are you? What I said was literally acknowledging that the slippery slope is unavoidable. What I added was that the onus of all of us, the real concern we as citizens and netizens should have is to prevent it to slide more and more towards authocracy and authoritarianism by a growing "interpretation" of what "hate speech" is by the Law that we are all under scrutiny from.
I didn't misrepresent you at all. I simply pointed out that being lower on the slope is not necessarily a bad thing.
-
If someone is further down the slope but the gradient is the same, they're not any more likely to slide into autocratic dystopias any more than you are.
You are kinda already there actually. In some ways we had more freedom of speech during communist dictatorship than the UK has today.
-
You may not be, but it's quite clear that other people are. You link to an obviously slanted website linking to an obvious slanted website quoting an obviously slanted defense laywer of an obviously slanted man who may or may not be a harasser (currently in court, so...) - All of them with the intent of ensuring that they are can not be held accountable for the awfull **** people utter on the internet (because what is the internet coming to! (http://wondermark.com/1k71/)).
Very well, I challenge you to find a liberal outlet reporting on this case in a "reasonable" manner that better exposes the facts. Funny thing, I haven't found it.
I understand though if you'll prefer to post vapid cartoons instead. After all, life's too short to be serious about anything.
-
Which is exactly why I mentioned the gradient.
You are assuming the gradient is linear, it is not. It is exponential. The more anti free speech laws there are, the easier it is to get new ones enacted due to precedents and the easier it is to convince the judges that at least some of them were violated. This is why US first amendment is such a great thing, it puts a stop to any anti-free speech legislation before it even has a chance to become part of status quo. If not for the first amenment the US would have long ago deteriorated into something resembling European oppressive systems by now, IMHO. There would already be many innocent americans in prison merely for being "hateful".
-
You have the Right to free speech
I have the Right to not feel threatened or persecuted by another without just cause
Intent or humour ends at the point where someone else is adversely affected and the law in this case is there to protect the majority over the minority.
Also where is the difference between #killallwhitemen #killallblackwomen #killallmuslimtrans
what separates the above from #blowupbritishbusses ?
it is all disgusting and is criminal for a good reason.
-
I love the characterisation of Europe as oppressive. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting the majority of Europeans to agree with that in the slightest.
-
I didn't misrepresent you at all. I simply pointed out that being lower on the slope is not necessarily a bad thing.
Ah I see. So I misrepresented your misrepresentation. My bad. I'll try again. My point was never that if you're in a lower position on the slope, that means the tendency is to go lower faster, or that there's any necessity of badness (or goodness) in any particular localization on the slope itself. My point was rather that the null pressures for society are for it to go into autocracy. It benefits the system if you cannot challenge it, it benefits those in power if you can't have a say against them. "Free Speech" is such an incredible idea precisely because it tries to counter these obvious pressures. We tell ourselves all the stories why it's such an incredible idea (it makes our societies thrive, it makes our societies more "anti-fragile" in all sorts of ways, etc.), but that doesn't make the pressures stop existing.
Those pressures will always exist, and they will gain ground once people start accepting that perhaps freedom of speech is not that much of a great idea. And then awkward cases and situations might start to happen.
What I am saying is that this is where we should be fighting, against the curbing of free speech, not for it. That the biggest dangers are lurking in the curbing of them, not in the liberation of speech. That is, what I am saying is that, given natural pressures on that slope, we should be worrying about sliding to one side more than to the other.
-
You have the Right to free speech
I have the Right to not feel threatened or persecuted by another without just cause
Intent or humour ends at the point where someone else is adversely affected and the law in this case is there to protect the majority over the minority.
Also where is the difference between #killallwhitemen #killallblackwomen #killallmuslimtrans
what separates the above from #blowupbritishbusses ?
it is all disgusting and is criminal for a good reason.
Yeah, no. You dont have a right to not feel persecuted or threatened, not if its just words. I dont think your feelings should be a matter of criminal proceedings, that is very egoistical IMHO. "Adverse effect" must be something more than just feeling bad.
-
Obviously case-by-case judgement is necessary, but the Internet - and by extension Twitter is a mass medium, and there is absolutely no way of knowing what kind of audience received that message. Who's to say someone didn't take it seriously?
You are advocating the prosecution of someone over the possibility of a crime having been committed.
I'm sure this is a good idea. Let's go back to the Inquisition. Vehement suspicion of heresy!
Worse yet, it's the possiblity of a crime having been committed that the person being charged with has neither intent to commit, nor knowledge of. If somebody did take it seriously, it's extremely likely that the person who tweeted never knew.
That's insane.
-
I love the characterisation of Europe as oppressive. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting the majority of Europeans to agree with that in the slightest.
Youd have a hard time getting a majority of Saudi Arabians to agree that their country is oppressive, but it is. Europe is not oppressive in general but when it comes to freedom of speech it is pretty bad and sometimes comparable to third world dictatorships. It doesnt happen often than I feel sorry for a radical feminazi but now I do. Oppressive is the right word.
-
I didn't misrepresent you at all. I simply pointed out that being lower on the slope is not necessarily a bad thing.
Ah I see. So I misrepresented your misrepresentation. My bad. I'll try again. My point was never that if you're in a lower position on the slope, that means the tendency is to go lower faster, or that there's any necessity of badness (or goodness) in any particular localization on the slope itself. My point was rather that the null pressures for society are for it to go into autocracy. It benefits the system if you cannot challenge it, it benefits those in power if you can't have a say against them. "Free Speech" is such an incredible idea precisely because it tries to counter these obvious pressures. We tell ourselves all the stories why it's such an incredible idea (it makes our societies thrive, it makes our societies more "anti-fragile" in all sorts of ways, etc.), but that doesn't make the pressures stop existing.
Those pressures will always exist, and they will gain ground once people start accepting that perhaps freedom of speech is not that much of a great idea. And then awkward cases and situations might start to happen.
What I am saying is that this is where we should be fighting, against the curbing of free speech, not for it. That the biggest dangers are lurking in the curbing of them, not in the liberation of speech. That is, what I am saying is that, given natural pressures on that slope, we should be worrying about sliding to one side more than to the other.
I don't disagree with that in the slightest. But unless you can prove that the UK is sliding towards autocracy faster than the US in this respect, I don't see where the problem is. We've decided where our balance is. And while the US might have a better position for their culture, it's not the right one for us. As The E pointed out, most of Europe are very happy with their position on the slope. And despite what 666 claims, I doubt you can be happily oppressed.
-
My comment about the tendency towards autocracy is generalist. I agree that being on any point on the slope is not predictive of its delta.
Also, my personal take on the issue is that Europe's laws are indeed oppressive regarding free speech (I do have issues with portuguese law, for instance), they are just less oppressive than Chinese law. And my preference goes to US law. Although you could probably find specific things where I'd be forced to disagree with.
-
You have the Right to free speech
I have the Right to not feel threatened or persecuted by another without just cause
Intent or humour ends at the point where someone else is adversely affected and the law in this case is there to protect the majority over the minority.
Also where is the difference between #killallwhitemen #killallblackwomen #killallmuslimtrans
what separates the above from #blowupbritishbusses ?
it is all disgusting and is criminal for a good reason.
Yeah, no. You dont have a right to not feel persecuted or threatened, not if its just words. I dont think your feelings should be a matter of criminal proceedings, that is very egoistical IMHO. "Adverse effect" must be something more than just feeling bad.
And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.
As for intent as I just mentioned that is considered here, the magistrate will consider intent during the case.
I love the characterisation of Europe as oppressive. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting the majority of Europeans to agree with that in the slightest.
Youd have a hard time getting a majority of Saudi Arabians to agree that their country is oppressive, but it is. Europe is not oppressive in general but when it comes to freedom of speech it is pretty bad and sometimes comparable to third world dictatorships. It doesnt happen often than I feel sorry for a radical feminazi but now I do. Oppressive is the right word.
Saudi is Middle east, not Europe
-
You are advocating the prosecution of someone over the possibility of a crime having been committed.
I'm sure this is a good idea. Let's go back to the Inquisition. Vehement suspicion of heresy!
Worse yet, it's the possiblity of a crime having been committed that the person being charged with has neither intent to commit, nor knowledge of. If somebody did take it seriously, it's extremely likely that the person who tweeted never knew.
That's insane.
I would agree with NGTM-1R here. Yes, there are occasions where you can and should hold a person accountable for the reactions their speech engenders. A speaker at a public rally calling for the smashing in of windshields of parked cars has a different level of accountability than J. Random Tweetbot posting using the #SmashAllWindshields hashtag.
As The E pointed out, most of Europe are very happy with their position on the slope. And despite what 666 claims, I doubt you can be happily oppressed.
I.... don't think I did? I mean, I agree with the statement, but I don't think I mentioned my stance on this in this thread.
All I can say is that the laws limiting freedom of speech in Germany haven't done much harm to the public discourse, and while they have on occasion been misused to prosecute political enemies (Spiegel-Affair), such misuses have always been corrected in the past. So while we're certainly a country that has a lesser freedom of expression as the US, we're still far away from being an oppressive, autocratic nightmare of rightspeech, and show no inclination to become one.
-
And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.
Holy ****. That's the worst analogy ever. Mods are not the police or courts. The worst they can do is to force you to find another forum for you to press keyboard keys.
-
And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.
As for intent as I just mentioned that is considered here, the magistrate will consider intent during the case.
Obviously, being banned from a private forum is something entirely different than a criminal penalty.
Saudi is Middle east, not Europe
Doesnt matter for my point. And when it comes to free speech, some European countries may as well be in Middle East, it is a similar mentality.
And despite what 666 claims, I doubt you can be happily oppressed.
Oh, you can. Saudis are pretty happy and if it was up to their population they would have even more strict sharia, the ruling elite is actually the liberal wing. So they are happy, well except for women or homosexuals maybe, but everyone knows their opinions do not count. Just like the opinion of this woman does not count.
-
Saudi is Middle east, not Europe
I can't talk about Saudi Arabia but I will point out that you might not get the response 666 expects in China.
I.... don't think I did? I mean, I agree with the statement, but I don't think I mentioned my stance on this in this thread.
I didn't refer to your stance, simply that you pointed out the stance of your country.
-
I.... don't think I did? I mean, I agree with the statement, but I don't think I mentioned my stance on this in this thread.
I didn't refer to your stance, simply that you pointed out the stance of your country.
Didn't mention that either, this is my second post in this thread.....
-
Ah sorry, It was Black Wolf not you. You've said similar things in the past though IIRC.
-
And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.
As for intent as I just mentioned that is considered here, the magistrate will consider intent during the case.
Obviously, being banned from a private forum is something entirely different than a criminal penalty.
What matters is the idea of being just and I have just as much right to be free of persecution on here as I do twitter or over the phone
Saudi is Middle east, not Europe
Doesnt matter for my point. And when it comes to free speech, some European countries may as well be in Middle East, it is a similar mentality.
Example please
-
Here's a question.
Should inciting people to criminal activity be allowed or not?
Personally, I think yes, yes it should. I get the point that everyone's responsible for their own actions so if they commit a crime they're the ones responsible for it, whether someone told them to do it or not. And I do agree that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
However there are situations where someone holds an overwhelming influence over a group of people. People with a position of authority, people who are popular, people who have any kind of following (IRL or online). Things start to get really dodgy when you consider how seriously some people might take what they say, and personally I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the people in such position to be responsible enough not to say something that their herd of followers might decide to follow up on.
Obviously there's a difference between whether the Pope tells Catholics to slaughter all Protestants, or an imam tells his congregation of muslims that the punishment for apostasy is death, or a blogger resorts to a hyperbole calling the death of all white males. There *is* a difference in the consequences that these claims could realistically be expected to have.
But these kinds of distinctions and lines are pretty difficult to write up into the legislation. To preserve the principle of legality, all people must be equal in the eyes of the law. That means you can't just pick and choose which particular encouragements to criminal activity should be illegal and which ones should not.
That's why the legislation must necessarily take all claims of this nature similarly at face value. The consequences, on the other hand, should definitely be scaled according to common sense. Specifically on how much influence the person encouraging others to commit crimes can realistically be seen to have, and whether or not they themselves are aware of said influence.
For a blogger, I wouldn't expect very serious consequences. Mostly I would expect a fine of some amount and a stern talking-to.
..."while you were typing 6 new replies have been posted." Crikey, I put my fingers in a hot soup didn't I...
-
What matters is the idea of being just and I have just as much right to be free of persecution on here as I do twitter or over the phone
As I said, you do not have any right to be free of verbal "persecution" on any forum. The reason why people here cannot "persecute" you is not because of any rights of yours, but because this is a private forum and those in charge decided than if someone will begin to "persecute" you then that user will be banned. It is not because if any rights of yours, it is just how things are on this site. If HLP turns to anarchy tomorrow and someone begins to freely "persecute" you then still no rights of yours would be violated at all. There are certainly forums on the internet where you may very well get "persecuted" and they have as much right to exist as HLP does.
Example please
Putting people into prison for tweeting #killallwhitemen hashtag.
-
What matters is the idea of being just and I have just as much right to be free of persecution on here as I do twitter or over the phone
As I said, you do not have any right to be free of verbal "persecution" on any forum. The reason why people here cannot "persecute" you is not because of any rights of yours, but because this is a private forum and those in charge decided than if someone will begin to "persecute" you then that user will be banned. It is not because if any rights of yours, it is just how things are on this site. If HLP turns to anarchy tomorrow and someone begins to freely "persecute" you then still no rights of yours would be violated at all. There are certainly forums on the internet where you may very well get "persecuted" and they have as much right to exist as HLP does.
I actually do have the right not to be threatened by a law that is nearly as old as I am
Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.
Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.
The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.
The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).
A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.
also 6 months is nothing, she will probably be out on a tag after 3 weeks. I would also like to add that quite frankly I find it backwards that the person causing offense has more rights that the offended party in the US
Example please
Putting people into prison for tweeting #killallwhitemen hashtag.
So the UK is comparable to a Middle Eastern state? do you really want to go there?
-
Yeah nothing to look here, move on, it's just jailing someone for 3 weeks because they made a jokeish hashtag on twitter. Really people, what the fuss is all about? I mean, if we allow stupid hashtags like that, what else will we allow? We must stop this "allowing" stuff. People might confuse this place with a "free society" or something equally disturbing and horrendous.
-
also 6 months is nothing, she will probably be out on a tag after 3 weeks. I would also like to add that quite frankly I find it backwards that the person causing offense has more rights that the offended party in the US
So the UK is comparable to a Middle Eastern state? do you really want to go there?
Accused should always have more rights than the victims. It is the old maxim "better a hundred criminals go free than an innocent go to jail". Certainly much older than a 25 years old weird law. Victim centric legal system is wrong. Punitive power of the government should be restricted by various checks and balances even if it means some people will be offended without compensation. Especially when it comes to trivial "offenses" such as in this case.
And yes, the UK is comparable to Middle eastern state when it comes to freedom of speech. Especially in last decade or two, after various hate speech laws have been enacted. Just replace "blasphemers, apostates, homosexuals" with "racists, bigots, hate speechers", or whatever the state sanctioned enemy is in this zeitgeist. You probably dont realize how really broad UK laws are to even prosecute something like this. You should read them, it is pretty absurd on paper. I mean, Slovakian laws are pretty oppressive in this, too, unworthy of a modern nation, and they are still a lot less broad than UK ones. And at least we have the advantage of our government continuing to ignore the very existence of the internet, lol. For once I am glad that it is so incompetent, lol.
-
You may not be, but it's quite clear that other people are. You link to an obviously slanted website linking to an obvious slanted website quoting an obviously slanted defense laywer of an obviously slanted man who may or may not be a harasser (currently in court, so...) - All of them with the intent of ensuring that they are can not be held accountable for the awfull **** people utter on the internet (because what is the internet coming to! (http://wondermark.com/1k71/)).
Very well, I challenge you to find a liberal outlet reporting on this case in a "reasonable" manner that better exposes the facts. Funny thing, I haven't found it.
Off course not! People get charged for harassment all the time. The case is only interesting for people who want to construct some sort of narrative of feminists arresting you for your opinions on the internet. It's part of this "THERE IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WE ARE HEADING DOWN ON" narrative that has to be created in order to rally people for a cause.
-
Meanwhile the guy is facing jail and wasting huge resources on courts and lawyers due to some twitter conversations, but that's alright, because that reality isn't really real you see, it's just "right wing paranoia". I'm sure that's a whole lot of comfort for the guy who has lost his job and all his savings.
I can't make this stuff up, it's like Twillight Zone here.
-
Yeah nothing to look here, move on, it's just jailing someone for 3 weeks because they made a jokeish hashtag on twitter. Really people, what the fuss is all about? I mean, if we allow stupid hashtags like that, what else will we allow? We must stop this "allowing" stuff. People might confuse this place with a "free society" or something equally disturbing and horrendous.
If she is in a police cell right now I would be surprised. unless it is a serious crime or it is felt she is a credible threat to society the usual form is arrest, interview, size relevant items, charge, bail until court date, everyone turns up to the trial.
at the trial the prosecution and defence offer their evidence, the defence will argue intent as part of the case, the jury will come to a verdict, then the judge passes sentence if guilty which in this case ranges from a fine to imprisonment.
also 6 months is nothing, she will probably be out on a tag after 3 weeks. I would also like to add that quite frankly I find it backwards that the person causing offense has more rights that the offended party in the US
So the UK is comparable to a Middle Eastern state? do you really want to go there?
Accused should always have more rights than the victims. It is the old maxim "better a hundred criminals go free than an innocent go to jail". Certainly much older than a 25 years old weird law. Victim centric legal system is wrong. Punitive power of the government should be restricted by various checks and balances even if it means some people will be offended without compensation. Especially when it comes to trivial offenses such as in this case.
And yes, the UK is comparable to Middle eastern state when it comes to freedom of speech. Especially in last decade or two, after various hate speech laws have been enacted. Just replace "blasphemers, apostates, homosexuals" with "racists, bigots, hate speechers", or whatever the state sanctioned enemy is in this zeitgeist. You probably dont realize how really broad UK laws are to even prosecute something like this. You should read them, it is pretty absurd on paper. I mean, Slovakian laws are pretty oppressive in this, too, and they are still a lot less broad than UK ones. And at least we have the advantage of our government continuing to ignore the very existence of the internet, lol. For once I am glad that it is so incompetent, lol.
and she will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You make it sound like I live under the cloud of oppression, and yet sitting here that is not the case, I can say what I want so long as I dont go threatening people, promote violence, crime or hate....... that's it and I dont want the right to do that either as I am not the disgusting kind of person who would do such a thing and I am glad that people of a lower moral standard are held to that baseline.
-
While I get quite a bit of schadenfreude from this, since I had heard of this individual before, I have to agree with Bobboau and Luis Dias.
Speech is incredibly difficult to qualify, bordering on the impossible. And while we personally feel there should be a limit somewhere, none of us can tell exactly where that should be.
In the end, I'd prefer to err on the side of unlimited speech and all the negatives that it can entail, than on the side of censorship.
-
Meanwhile the guy is facing jail and wasting huge resources on courts and lawyers due to some twitter conversations, but that's alright, because that reality isn't really real you see, it's just "right wing paranoia". I'm sure that's a whole lot of comfort for the guy who has lost his job and all his savings.
Untill the verdict is out, we can't really know for sure can we? I'm skeptical because three women individually standing up to a man to hold him accountable for his actions (Accusations of stalking were made) is not something that just happens for the sake of it, thanks to the usual ****vortex that comes with standing up for yourself. Untill the verdict is out and we can read the report, it's really not supporting any of your arguments.
-
I find this thread kinda odd. It seems like before you could have had a thread like this and the idea of shouting fire in a crowd or incitement to violence would have rather universally been agreed to be acceptable exceptions to freedom of speech, whereas now there's many people here suddenly specifically advocating unlimited freedom of speech.
Did people change or do I remember things wrong?
-
You make it sound like I live under the cloud of oppression, and yet sitting here that is not the case, I can say what I want so long as I dont go threatening people, promote violence, crime or hate....... that's it and I dont want the right to do that either as I am not the disgusting kind of person who would do such a thing and I am glad that people of a lower moral standard are held to that baseline.
You are living under the cloud of oppression, you just dont realize it because you are part of the oppressors and lack empathy with those who are prosecuted by these laws, while at the same time pretending to have some illusory moral high ground. Heck, I too am living under the cloud of oppression, and our speech laws and their enforcement are a lot more liberal than UK ones. As I said, this is something I would expect from some third world dictatorship or communist one, not a modern developed nation.
-
I wouldn't be so certain your laws are more liberal at all. Remember that the entire EU exists under the European Convention on Human Rights. Which is far more liberal than the constitution in many, many ways. It's simply that we've chosen a different balance than you.
Untill the verdict is out, we can't really know for sure can we? I'm skeptical because three women individually standing up to a man to hold him accountable for his actions (Accusations of stalking were made) is not something that just happens for the sake of it, thanks to the usual ****vortex that comes with standing up for yourself. Untill the verdict is out and we can read the report, it's really not supporting any of your arguments.
Not to mention, let's say that we knew he is 100% innocent. That doesn't automatically mean the law is bad. Are people going to say we should repeal the laws on child pornography cause of this case (https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha)? Or are we simply going to say that this was an overzealous interpretation of a law which usually protects those who need it. In both the UK and US it's not as simply as law broken = court case. In both cases the choice to prosecute has to go up before someone. The CPS in the case of the UK.
-
I find this thread kinda odd. It seems like before you could have had a thread like this and the idea of shouting fire in a crowd or incitement to violence would have rather universally been agreed to be acceptable exceptions to freedom of speech, whereas now there's many people here suddenly specifically advocating unlimited freedom of speech.
Did people change or do I remember things wrong?
People probably did not realize that "incitement to violence" also describes a stupid tweet or similar trivial matters. Incitement to violence is illegal even in the US however there are some other very strict conditions about what qualifies for that. On the other hand, European laws are extremely broad, to the point where thousands upon thousands of criminal offenses are routinely committed every day, and it is only up to the authorities to decide which ones will they choose to prosecute.
-
I find this thread kinda odd. It seems like before you could have had a thread like this and the idea of shouting fire in a crowd or incitement to violence would have rather universally been agreed to be acceptable exceptions to freedom of speech, whereas now there's many people here suddenly specifically advocating unlimited freedom of speech.
Did people change or do I remember things wrong?
There's a definitive difference to those two things. Incitement to violence, to panic, those things are still bad and punishable. But posting to a hashtag? One that, even to a casual observer, is more about irony and sarcasm and misunderstood feminism than it is about actually going out and murdering some white dudes? That's many things, but a fireable offence it probably isn't.
It's a question of context, basically.
-
Not to mention, let's say that we knew he is 100% innocent. That doesn't automatically mean the law is bad. Are people going to say we should repeal the laws on child pornography cause of this case (https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha)?
Yes, that law is absolutely bad and it should be at least clarified so that there is an exception for photos of yourself, or near age exceptions, or something like that.
-
No law will ever be so perfect it can't be abused by someone bloody minded enough to do it. The problem is not just the law, but the people prosecuting them.
-
If she is in a police cell right now I would be surprised. unless it is a serious crime or it is felt she is a credible threat to society the usual form is arrest, interview, size relevant items, charge, bail until court date, everyone turns up to the trial.
at the trial the prosecution and defence offer their evidence, the defence will argue intent as part of the case, the jury will come to a verdict, then the judge passes sentence if guilty which in this case ranges from a fine to imprisonment.
The process is part of the punishment. I seriously advise people to read more Kafka.
-
People probably did not realize that "incitement to violence" also describes a stupid tweet or similar trivial matters. Incitement to violence is illegal even in the US however there are some other very strict conditions about what qualifies for that. On the other hand, European laws are extremely broad, to the point where thousands upon thousands of criminal offenses are routinely committed every day, and it is only up to the authorities to decide which ones will they choose to prosecute.
There's a definitive difference to those two things. Incitement to violence, to panic, those things are still bad and punishable. But posting to a hashtag? One that, even to a casual observer, is more about irony and sarcasm and misunderstood feminism than it is about actually going out and murdering some white dudes? That's many things, but a fireable offence it probably isn't.
It's a question of context, basically.
I wasn't referring to the tweet, but the seemingly unrelated statements made since.
"You are living under the cloud of oppression"
"I'd prefer to err on the side of unlimited speech and all the negatives that it can entail"
"Do I agree with absolute free speech? Yes."
"never communication of ideas, thoughts, feelings or desires"
etc.
Ok, so, in retrospect that's only like 4 people who have just posted a lot, not "many people".
-
You make it sound like I live under the cloud of oppression, and yet sitting here that is not the case, I can say what I want so long as I dont go threatening people, promote violence, crime or hate....... that's it and I dont want the right to do that either as I am not the disgusting kind of person who would do such a thing and I am glad that people of a lower moral standard are held to that baseline.
You are living under the cloud of oppression, you just dont realize it because you are part of the oppressors and lack empathy with those who are prosecuted by these laws, while at the same time pretending to have some illusory moral high ground. Heck, I too am living under the cloud of oppression, and our speech laws and their enforcement are a lot more liberal than UK ones. As I said, this is something I would expect from some third world dictatorship or communist one, not a modern developed nation.
Ok while in the abstract what you say has merit, in the real world it fails to take into account the problems caused by human nature.
-
Well, the issues are defining limits of what constitutes as the limits of "harmful" in free speech.
The age old anecdote of yelling fire in a crowded theatre applies. Free Speech is a double edged sword - make outrageous and potentially criminal claims? Prepare to own up to it.
Vagueness is the greatest danger and strength of free speech. And unlike like many European countries its enshrined in our policies, even if our government does a terrible job at administering it.
This isn't a swipe at you Euros, but my government, at least at the onset, understood that a robust protection of basic dialogue rights was needed. Various legal cases, court battles, etc have established a clear requirement of establishing that "harm" actually has to have strong evidence showing the accused seeks to carry out on their threats, not merely to incite.
As for the kook who spun #killallwhitemen? Well, this should be a cautionary tale of special interest groups demanding the right to define what is and isn't harmful speech. The crazy RadFems want the exclusive right to determine which speech is harmful or not, but I find it pretty great the methods they're trying to use can and will be deployed against them as well.
-
Going by twitter (https://twitter.com/HeQuiLait/status/650986621618266112), she might be even crazier than we thought.
Remember kids, "any violence that happens to tories at an anti #tory #demo ain't violence. Its[sic] self defense."
-
well, hey, you know all the stuff that happens when women try to defend themselves in the patriarchy, she's a victim you aren't allowed to oppress her.
wow, she must have a very interesting definition of "fascist" to claim to be anti.
there, see the system works, she didn't need to be escorted to jail, a little bit of sarcastic ridicule of her and her victimhood cult and everything is settled again.
-
You guys seriously should grow a thicker skin.
-
hey, Josh, the eh... the wage gap isn't real...
-
You guys seriously should grow a thicker skin.
You got to be ****ting me.
-
no, he seriously has played the "NO U!" card.
out of nowhere I might add.
-
I imagine he's being sarcastic. Frankly, you're all as bad as each other.
-
Take it easy grandpa.
-
I imagine he's being sarcastic. Frankly, you're all as bad as each other.
What they said. Look guys (and that I don't have to worry about going gender neutral here is an issue in itself), we used to have a decent-ish conversation about boundaries in this thread, but once we start devolving into "Look this crazy ***** said mean things on the internet" type of discussions, we're opening a can of hypocritical worms that is almost as bad as that whole gamergate bull****. So let's not go there.
And perhaps instead explain to me why it is that one can get away with sending rape and death threats, whilst posting in a hashtag designed purposefully for trolling white penises is awfull. That seems wholly backwards.
Take it easy grandpa.
Okay I have to ask: Why is it that, when I use the "thinskin" argument, I get a "You've got to be ****ting me", but you immeaditely use it upon Phantom?
-
"get away with" and being "awful" are not mutually exclusive.
what is being said might be closer to "posting in a hashtag designed purposefully for trolling white penises" is equivalent to "sending rape and death threats", both being awful and a persons right.
people have a right to be awful, to say awful things, because one persons 'awful' is another person's excellent point. if someone is being **** and you call them **** you might be accused of being awful and it might look like it, and hell it might actually be the case, it doesn't mean your not right.
-
So I post an indication that suggest that maybe, just maybe it wasn't just the hashtag that triggered this event and suddenly -Joshua- is up in arms.
I haven't sent rape threats, I haven't done any of those things, why should I have to defend the actions of those people while earlier have defended her rights to say whatever she wants?
Seriously, do I have to bow down to her and pray so that my supposed sins (whatever you are implying) are to be absolved?
What exactly do you want to accomplish? People not posting more information?
-
I always thought rape threats were just part of the internet's background noise.
You say "hi"
Someone says "I WILL RAPE YOU"
I'd never say that, but the internet's full of jerks.
-
You're so behind the times Turambar, we are making things "better" now!
-
To paraphrase Stewart Lee, if there's anything political correctness has done it's that the MRAs hide their inherent sexism beneath more creative language :p
---
No, Ghostavo, what I am curious about is why this woman in particular gets arrested for saying objectionable things whilst the people that send her death threats don't. Or why, of all the people to post in a certain hashtag it just happens to be a woman of colour that gets arrested for it. I'm questining that, of all the awfull awfull things that happen, this is the result we see.
-
Were those people Londoners that sent rape/death threats? I'm not sure if the London police has jurisdiction outside London... I'm not saying it's alright for them to do so, but if you are attributing racism/sexism to the London police for only charging her, not arresting her as you are implying, you have to give some sort of evidence that these were Londoners.
Out of curiosity, how is she a person of color?
-
you are asking why does 'Diversity Officer' of 'Prestigious University' get more scrutiny than EgGn0nYm0u$1376551 who may or may not live in the UK?
wait... she's "of color"? she looks pretty white to me :wtf:, but whatever, that's not relevant.
It's because she was the biggest name and had a well published pattern, the louder your megaphone the more likely you will be heard. but it sort of sounds like you are asking for everyone who posted that hashtag to be rounded up. BTW white hetero-normative men get charged with this all the time also.
and on a slightly different direction, do you at least now see how tools intended to stop oppression (which is what the law here was for) can be very easily commandeered and used by the oppressor? when you make laws like this you have to ask yourself "how will this law work when I loose control over it? will it still be a tool for good if my mortal enemies get the reins?" I fear ANYONE wielding this sort of power. I fear SJWs getting laws like this passed and then the theocrats regaining power and then deeming criticism of Christianity as harassment and arresting anyone who argues against the existence of a god. I'm sure your imagination can fill in some other, even darker interpretations the religious right in this country could make.
-
Any law can be perverted though. And the protections against that are basically the same. The US has the constitution, Europe has the Convention on Human Rights, etc.
-
not all laws are equally vulnerable.
-
True, but the blanket protections that Karajorma mentions are much stronger then any laws.
-
not exactly, they ARE laws, and they can be changed, affected, and interpreted like any other law. passing new laws can strengthen or weaken them.
and only the US has the constitution, only the EU has the CHR
-
Countries within the EU, including the Netherlands, have their own constitution that protects free speech (the UK does not have a constitution at all but they're a complicated bunch).
Sure, the constitution can be changed (Which, in The Netherlands, requires two votes with a 2/3rd majority in the second chamber with a 4 year interval in between, which means that a constitutional amendment can not pass without there having been an election). After all, free speech is a vital part of a functioning democracy - one of several. As an example, the dutch consitution also has a chapter which disallows discrimination.
-
ok, so you see how concepts of illegal speech such as "hate speech", inciting violence, blasphemy, threats, and the newly minted "cyber violence" are an erosion of that vital part of a functioning democracy?
-
ok, so you see how concepts of illegal speech such as "hate speech", inciting violence, blasphemy, threats, and the newly minted "cyber violence" are an erosion of that vital part of a functioning democracy?
Hate speech, inciting violence, threats, cyber violence and all that jazz are not vital parts of a functioning democracy at all. They are tools to eliminate democracy and have been used succesfully as such in the past. Why do you think the dutch government censures the nazi ideology? It's certainly not because of 70 year old notions of vengeance nor was it an imposed condition by an occupying force. It's because the dutch think that hate speech sabotages democracy - and it does! They're tools to opress, to eliminate dissenting voices or groups, thus altering the political landscape trough a method other then discourse. You could argue that banning such measures is an evil, but if it is, it is certainly the lesser of the two.
-
First off, from my perspective, it sounds like you are using your conclusion as your starting point. yeah, sure, I'll grant you the dutch probably agree with you, but that isn't an argument in favor of either of your being right.
Second, from your description it sounds like illegal speech laws are hate speech themselves.
"tools to opress" now I'll grant you the only people this oppresses are ****ty people, but that is the exact attitude that all oppressors have had in regard to those they oppress. A very large part of the point of Illegal speech is to keep certain ideologies and groups down and unable to express themselves, to "eliminate" those groups. When you make it illegal to say things how are you not "altering the political landscape trough a method other then discourse"? you are just flat out saying they aren't allowed to even make the argument. When is it never working to "eliminate dissenting voices"? For sake of brevity lets just call all that jazz "hate speech" can you give me a general definition of hate speech that doesn't include it's self? The very reason I oppose hate speech laws is because they are an example of the exact things you say they are trying to prevent. Hate speech laws are inherently oppressive, and that is why we find ourselves in the very position that started this thread.
and how do you know these people are wrong⸮ (rhetorical question) how do other people? how can you expect some edgy teenager to be able to defend themselves intellectually from very seductive bad ideas if they've never heard them before? if they've never heard the arguments against them? argue against hate speech, don't ban it.
-
Hate speech, inciting violence, threats, cyber bullying do not actually harm democracy or silence anyone at all. You could argue that if some hateful ideology like nazism gets to power, then it can use actual violence to silence the opposition. But it is only after this happens that there is some harm to democracy, and there are other laws to prevent that. Speech alone is incapable of harming a democracy in any way whatsoever.
And I for one am not comfortable in silencing the opposition only because there is a miniscule chance that it could prevent the next Hitler from arising. That is too much of a remote possibility to justify criminal punishments on. Especially since when such beliefs begin to get mainstream then no amount of hate speech laws will help you because the will to enforce these ridiculous laws will be the first thing to go. Then you will have bigger issues in society than a bit of hate speech here and there.
-
Second, from your description it sounds like illegal speech laws are hate speech themselves.
"tools to opress" now I'll grant you the only people this oppresses are ****ty people, but that is the exact attitude that all oppressors have had in regard to those they oppress.
You could make the argument that not having hate speech laws is just as oppressive though. It's all well and good trying to claim that the ideal is that all speech should be permitted but this is the real world we live in and you're basically consigning anyone in a minority to live in fear because you want to protect an ideal. An ideal that claims it wants all people to be able to speak freely without fear. But if people are already in fear, they aren't going to be able to speak freely in the first place. So you've already lost.
When it comes to protecting the rights of people who are innocent or the rights of people who are guilty, you have to choose to protect the rights of the innocent. That's why we deprive people of their freedom for committing crimes in the first place.
-
You could make the argument that not having hate speech laws is just as oppressive though.
No you could not. You could make an argument that lack of hate speech laws could maybe lead to rise of an actually oppressive regime in the future, if the hate speech catches on and gains actual power. But mere lack of hate speech laws is not oppressive at all under functioning democracy.
-
I just pointed out exactly who it oppresses (minorities) and you ignored that to ride your hobby horse about dictators and evil regimes.
EDIT: Before you go any further guys, imagine being a black man in a country where the majority is white and whenever you speak you hear calls to "Kill the nigger!" Exactly what free speech do you think you have? It doesn't matter whether the law claims you have the right to free speech without fear if in practice you don't.
That is the reason why hate speech laws are needed. That's why they safeguard free speech more than they harm it.
-
you're basically consigning anyone in a minority to live in fear
of being talked at :wtf:
if people are already in fear
of
being
talked
at
:
w
t
f
:
When it comes to protecting the rights of people who are innocent or the rights of people who are guilty, you have to choose to protect the rights of the innocent. That's why we deprive people of their freedom for committing crimes in the first place.
They are only guilty if you assume the conclusion. That talking can be a crime.
If people are unable to stand up against bad ideas, THAT is the problem that needs addressing, and as I mentioned illegal speech laws just make that problem worse.
Not to mention that they cause the people who already have those views to retreat into hidden private echo chambers that only further radicalize them.
-
Read the edit to my post above. This is not about being talked at.
-
imagine being an Atheist in a "Christian Nation" where there are dozens of nationally syndicated radio broadcasts talking about how atheists are without morals and a threat to civil society. Imagine being the most distrusted minority in america (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=most+distrusted+minority+in+america). It doesn't matter what the law says because "atheists shouldn't be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God"
now I want you to imagine a world where your minority status does not affect the validity of your argument.
-
Saying "Kill the nigger!" has no effect if the actual threat of that sentence wasn't sufficiently true. The thing here was, it was damned true. They used to kill them for just being so.
Personally, I'm always moderately minded by fiat, I am wary of absolutist ideologies, and that includes an absolutism of "free speech" I'm afraid. That is to say, I don't mind certain exceptions to free speech. But as far as I can tell, these should be as minimal as possible. To arrest people, to deprive them of their own freedom, to destroy their personal lives and their finances because they said some stupid **** once in their lifes is too much of a disproportionate answer, if all the consequence is that some bad things were said and meant. If, however, some person was killed (or injured) directly due to these words, they should definitely be responsibilized in some manner.
-
For the most part, I agree with you there Luis. I don't think we should have to wait for someone to actually be harmed before doing something. If there is a reasonable expectation of harm should be enough of a yardstick. That means that people with power get clubbed with this rule far more often than some sadsack tweeting about killing all white people.
As for this case being disproportionate, I do wonder if this particular person has attempted to use these same laws to her own advantage a few times and is on the receiving end of that, rather than simply being picked at random.
imagine being an Atheist in a "Christian Nation" where there are dozens of nationally syndicated radio broadcasts talking about how atheists are without morals and a threat to civil society. Imagine being the most distrusted minority in america (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=most+distrusted+minority+in+america). It doesn't matter what the law says because "atheists shouldn't be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God"
now I want you to imagine a world where your minority status does not affect the validity of your argument.
That's easy enough to say when you don't have 200 years of systematic persecution of atheists at your back. Things have been pretty good for us in the last 100 years. Now if the police were more likely to kill you if you were an atheist. And you were more likely to killed at random for it. Then you might have a point.
And even still, atheists don't feel free to speak up. There are a **** load of atheists who hardly ever mention their lack of faith and only then to close friends. And it's precisely because of the kind of bull**** you mention. But at least they don't live in a climate where admitting to being an atheist could easily kill them. Unlike being black.
I'm not saying that your minority status should have any effect on the validity of your argument. I'm arguing that people with a minority status are oppressed out of free speech and that hate speech laws are an attempt to redress that balance. In an ideal world we wouldn't need them, but in the real world, we do.
-
You don't have an argument so you are trying to distract by bringing up my race. I'm not going to compete in the oppression olympics because it's irreverent. The validity of what I'm saying is unrelated to whether it's coming from the mouth (fingers?) of a cisgendered hetero-normative rich white male christian, or a black genderfuid homosexual poor muslim otherkin. Trying to play that game is not helping you convince me that I'm wrong, it is having the opposite effect on me.
Someone being an internet tough guy is not going to result in anyone being shot. On the other hand that internet tough guy being ridiculed and shown to be an impotent idiot will damage his position and anyone else who takes it. The fact that in 50 years we've gone from Black people being lynched on the street to the white house shows this. Back in the day people were not standing up again text on a glowing panel, they were standing up to fire hoses and attack dogs. they won with words, with argument, with open debate against racists. they won the argument, when it was face to face with rich white guys with guns. The racists have been pushed back into the periphery, if you wall them off you will only make them stronger because it is the disinfecting light of free and open debate when they say "K1LLtehn!ggres" they only hurt themselves, when they try more sophisticated things like bringing up statistics about blacks committing more crime they get destroyed by actually showing what is wrong with that. How would an argument like that effect someone who's never seen a racist online get ripped apart with every chance to defend themselves?
-
I dont agree that anyone can be oppressed by speech at all. Even in your example of "kill the nigger", it would only be real oppression if it actually progresses from words to something more, such as physical violence or immediate threat of it. Otherwise it is merely a verbal exchange of ideas, however despicable. Being insulted is not oppression.
Also, your example is completely unrealistic. There is no situation in real life where whenever you speak up, you hear calls to be killed. Not in any developed nation anyway. You may hear lots of such calls if a black person speaks on a KKK rally, lol, but thats about it. Not in mainstream discourse. So minorities are not really silenced by hate speech at all. They may be bothered by it sometimes, but not silenced, not unless they want to be silent and go out of their way to be quiet. To silence someone, you need something more than speech, you need physical violence, or its imminent threat. And that is not something that happens in modern democracies.
I really dont like how you are trying to frame this advocacy of hate speech laws as actually helping the free exchange of ideas. It is the polar opposite of what hate speech laws and censorship are for, so it is dishonest and absurd. At least have the courage to admit that you are afraid of the potential impact of some ideas and so you simply want to give up freedom for security and silence the opponents. Stop pretending you are doing it for freedom of expression in some strange roundabout way, because you are not. Quite a few years ago I used to support some limited form of hate speech laws, but I never dared to pretend that it was anything else than an attempt to social engineer potentially dangerous ideas out of public consciousness and as such inherently anti-free speech and limiting. That is true no matter if you agree with such laws or not.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Lack of hate speech bans is oppressive to political discourse. Yeah, right..
-
Actually some people say things like "GAAhhh I'm going to KILL you mother****a" all the time and we (correctly) don't put much weight into it. Perhaps we store it in our memory banks for the one off rare case where it was actually serious (just like we do look if we actually won the lottery ticket), but that's about it. Yeah it's rude. No, it doesn't deserve jail time. Variations can go like "You're scum, you're a waste of space", or "Someone should put a bullet through your skull". That latter one is probably illegal in the UK, and yet we do understand that 99,99% of the time it's not literal. It's just someone venting with frustration about something they saw or heard.
Hey, just like saying #KillAllWhiteMen. No one in their right mind should take that hashtag seriously. It's crude and rude, but I guess that was the point from the get go, and it was very much non literal. At worst it was a hashtag filled with the crazed psychotic fantasies that sometimes humans have against others in order to vent their frustrations. I even (gasp) understand its small "therapeutic" benefits.
That this hashtag will get a "hearing" is ridiculous. And not just from a waste of resources point of view, but if the system is so stupid that it cannot grasp this is something that should never reach the judicial system, then why would we feel any safer that the remaining parts of this system will be much better? At best, we are at the hands of the common sense of a judge. Who can be at their bad day (Imagine that he just went through a divorce with a crazed feminist woman and is out to get revenge into those damned women). Yeah I know, lightning strike odds, but then, what the **** are the odds of being jailed for tweeting a ****ing hashtag in the so-called "Free World"?
-
Take it easy grandpa.
A day late, but how about we not do this in the future, hmmm? Debate the point, not the poster.
-
Karajorma, the issue with those kinds of laws is who decides what is hate speech and what's not?
-
Who decides what is incitement to violence or to riot and what's not?
You don't have an argument so you are trying to distract by bringing up my race.
I didn't even know what race you are, let alone deliberately bring it up. I could have just as easily brought up being Muslim in America but then you get into problems with people correcting you if you use the word racist.
Someone being an internet tough guy is not going to result in anyone being shot. On the other hand that internet tough guy being ridiculed and shown to be an impotent idiot will damage his position and anyone else who takes it. The fact that in 50 years we've gone from Black people being lynched on the street to the white house shows this. Back in the day people were not standing up again text on a glowing panel, they were standing up to fire hoses and attack dogs. they won with words, with argument, with open debate against racists. they won the argument, when it was face to face with rich white guys with guns. The racists have been pushed back into the periphery, if you wall them off you will only make them stronger because it is the disinfecting light of free and open debate when they say "K1LLtehn!ggres" they only hurt themselves, when they try more sophisticated things like bringing up statistics about blacks committing more crime they get destroyed by actually showing what is wrong with that. How would an argument like that effect someone who's never seen a racist online get ripped apart with every chance to defend themselves?
Hate speech laws aren't there to prosecute every single case of racist speech you know. Just incitement to violence. But you don't even believe that incitement to violence is a crime in the first place anyway so you're pretty much a lost cause in this debate anyway.
-
Karajorma, the issue with those kinds of laws is who decides what is hate speech and what's not?
Democratically elected representative governments? We just had this debate in Australia over the repeal of parts of the Racial Discrimination Act. The people made their voices heard, and the repeal was stopped (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-dumps-controversial-changes-to-18c-racial-discrimination-laws-20140805-3d65l.html). You can read some of the history here (http://www.theage.com.au/comment/repeal-of-section-18c-would-give-racial-intolerance-open-slather-20150120-12upnn.html) - these laws aren't used oppressively, nor are courts bound to uphold or convict all complaints and charges brought under them.
-
@Luis, remember I brought up the point about the difference between a fundamentally flawed law and a misapplication of a law. If you want to argue that hate speech laws are fundamentally flawed I'm going to disagree with you. If you want to argue that this law is flawed or that it was applied counter to its purpose, that's a completely different argument. I'm arguing against Bob and 666 who disagree with the fundamental idea of hate speech laws.
-
Like I said I do think exceptions should exist and incitement to violence is one of them, etc. My point was just to say that, whatever it was within the system that allowed this person to be held in a court for making these tweets, it indicts the system as it is. As in, this case shows that something's gone too far. What exactly it was, I'm not sure.
-
That is a fair point. But it is worth remembering that we're only hearing one side of the story and the original tweet has since been deleted. For all we know the tweet was aimed at someone she'd been harassing.
That said, the more I read about the story, the more I suspect that she didn't do anything worthy of this reaction, even if she has acted rather foolishly.
-
Who decides what is incitement to violence or to riot and what's not?
You don't have an argument so you are trying to distract by bringing up my race.
I didn't even know what race you are, let alone deliberately bring it up. I could have just as easily brought up being Muslim in America but then you get into problems with people correcting you if you use the word racist.
I didn't either. Does anyone actually know the race of anyone else here? :confused:
-
Who decides what is incitement to violence or to riot and what's not?
this is a good question, you seem to throw it out as if it was an answer to Ghostavo's point, but it just further reinforces it.
I didn't even know what race you are, let alone deliberately bring it up. I could have just as easily brought up being Muslim in America but then you get into problems with people correcting you if you use the word racist.
you seem to be implying that I'm not a minority that has ~"suffered systematic oppression for the last 200 years"~.
Hate speech laws aren't there to prosecute every single case of racist speech you know. Just incitement to violence. But you don't even believe that incitement to violence is a crime in the first place anyway so you're pretty much a lost cause in this debate anyway.
This debate is ABOUT 'incitement of violence' as a crime. That was the very founding issue of the thread. That's the charge Bahar Mustafa was issued. I'm a lost cause because I disagree with you about the main case the thread is based on?
For all we know the tweet was aimed at someone she'd been harassing.
She has had a pattern of showing off blatantly anti-white/male biases as if it were hilarious. It was surly about more than her one single tweet, but probably her presented attitude combined with her position as someone who is supposed to be promoting diversity and inclusive in a major public institution of learning.
-
Who decides what is incitement to violence or to riot and what's not?
this is a good question, you seem to throw it out as if it was an answer to Ghostavo's point, but it just further reinforces it.
I've thus far avoided jumping into this one, but I can see a misunderstanding here that there's a chance to clear up before the quote chains get massive (seriously guys, please don't do those).
Kara's point is that incitement to violence and incitement to riot are currently things that are laws (bolded for emphasis not for volume) that no one has a problem with and that don't curtail freedom of expression and speech. It's an oblique answer to Ghostavo's question, in that it brings up situations that are nearly identical in every phase of a legal argument, and that have demonstrably not destroyed society or the freedom of expression.
-
eh, I say again, someone getting arrested for this law is what started this whole thread. whether or not it should be a law is what is being argued. Many people DO have a problem with, because they DO think it curtails freedom of speech and expression. Just because it hasn't utterly destroyed civilization doesn't mean it hasn't hurt it. Just because it's something you take for granted as true doesn't make it so.
-
And there you've basically reinforced my point. There is little point in debating whether laws on incitement to racial violence should exist with you when you don't believe that incitement to violence should be a law in the first place. But even in America with the 1st amendment, inciting to riot is a crime. So the debate has to go much deeper than I can be bothered to go. I'm only here to debate that hate laws are a necessary extension of the incitement laws. You don't believe in those laws so my entire point here is rather moot when it comes to what you're arguing.
you seem to be implying that I'm not a minority that has ~"suffered systematic oppression for the last 200 years"~.
Not as an atheist you aren't. Not unless you come from somewhere like the Middle East. Now if you want to claim that as a black man you feel that no one of your colour has ever feels pressured into silence, you can try to bring up that argument. But I doubt you'll win cause the pressure is there even for atheists who aren't suffering from that kind of oppression.
Kara's point is that incitement to violence and incitement to riot are currently things that are laws (bolded for emphasis not for volume) that no one has a problem with and that don't curtail freedom of expression and speech.
Problem is that there are two related debates going on at the same time. One on the validity of hate speech laws and one on the validity of any laws which curb free speech. Bob (and 666, I assume) are debating the second one, not the the first. Luis is debating the first, which is why we're agreeing a lot more.
-
She has had a pattern of showing off blatantly anti-white/male biases as if it were hilarious.
It is hilarious! As is her getting arrested over it. The whole point of stuff like KillAllMen is to satarize the feminazi slur by taking that slur to it's full implications and representing oneself as a genocidial maniac with feminist tendencies. The usual effect is that people who commonly use that same slur interrupt their conversations about thin skinned feminists without a sense of humour to send these women rape and death threats, missing the point like the hypocrites they are. See also: the masculinitysofragile hashtag.
And it gets better: The whole point of saying "You can't be racist/sexist against white men" is not that one can have a racist or sexist attitude towards white men. Rather, the point is that the institution they reside in prevent such racism from taking effect. Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.
-
Except that you can be racist/sexist towards white men. There are numerous cases of people losing their jobs or being hounded on social media to the point of near breakdown over remarkably trivial things.
-
Not to mention the whole "Listen and Believe" attitude. I believe we have a few people here who have suffered as a direct result of that alone.
My point with the race thing was that the color of my skin, the concavity of my genitals, what I believe to be true about the universe doesn't change the truth of what I am saying (though that last one would, in a general sense, likely lead me to different conclusions it wouldn't change IF what I was say was true or not if I was saying the same thing). If you agree with that then I think we should just drop this line, though if you want to tell me why the color of my skin changes the validity of my argument I'd be interested in hearing how.
Now I want to demonstrate something. ahem..
I will kill you all tonight while you sleep.
There I just threatened everyone in this thread. If you would be so kind as to observe the sky is still up above, your limbs are still attached, the world is remarkably similar to how it was before I did that. In fact one would have a very difficult time telling that anything in the world had changed at all. and yet, I have now broken the law of the UK, and law you propose to be a good idea in principal.
-
Except that you can be racist/sexist towards white men. There are numerous cases of people losing their jobs or being hounded on social media to the point of near breakdown over remarkably trivial things.
I'd argue that people get hounden on social media to the point of near breakdown due to a massive variety of reasons and that bringing it up as an example of how racist or sexist attitudes can work against white men is missing atleast one inbetween step.
Not to mention the whole "Listen and Believe" attitude. I believe we have a few people here who have suffered as a direct result of that alone.
My point with the race thing was that the color of my skin, the concavity of my genitals, what I believe to be true about the universe doesn't change the truth of what I am saying (though that last one would, in a general sense, likely lead me to different conclusions it wouldn't change IF what I was say was true or not if I was saying the same thing). If you agree with that then I think we should just drop this line, though if you want to tell me why the color of my skin changes the validity of my argument I'd be interested in hearing how.
Now I want to demonstrate something. ahem..
I will kill you all tonight while you sleep.
There I just threatened everyone in this thread. If you would be so kind as to observe the sky is still up above, your limbs are still attached, the world is remarkably similar to how it was before I did that. In fact one would have a very difficult time telling that anything in the world had changed at all. and yet, I have now broken the law of the UK, and law you propose to be a good idea in principal.
On the other hand, bobbeau, saying that you will kill me in my sleep tonight brings nothing to the conversation at all, and it's very very very easy for you not to say it. I'd let it stand simply because I think I can trust you on not carrying those things out (even though it does make me slightly uncomfortable), but when the entire board starts doing it, including people who have acces to my IP adress, I won't sleep at all tonight.
-
I think I have proven to be lazy over the years so maybe you're on to something.
but I would digress I think does bring something to the discussion, it shows how vacuous all the hysteria is. How it's not about protecting people but about controlling undesirables
-
Really, controlling undesirables? Really?
Death threats, the athmosphere of fear they create when you get hundreds of them without knowing how serious the other person on the line is, does hurt. It hurts because seeing people going trough such extreme lenghts to let you know they hate you for what other people said you did. Worse, you can never know the intent behind them - and you can argue that issuing death threats is essentially like crying wolf, but that story ended in death. It genuinely is about protecting people.
Why the **** do I even have to explain this to you?
-
It is hilarious! As is her getting arrested over it. The whole point of stuff like KillAllMen is to satarize the feminazi slur by taking that slur to it's full implications and representing oneself as a genocidial maniac with feminist tendencies. The usual effect is that people who commonly use that same slur interrupt their conversations about thin skinned feminists without a sense of humour to send these women rape and death threats, missing the point like the hypocrites they are. See also: the masculinitysofragile hashtag.
Well, I for one can see a difference between criticizing an ideology (feminism) and against the very notion of maleness. I don't think this difference is that hard to understand, but I might be missing something invisible here. It's a double standard of a sort, when it's obvious that if "meninists" had started that kind of hashtag against femininity itself, they would have been portrayed as mysoginists. I think in such a case it would be really hard to claim they weren't being mysoginistic. They could then whine all they wanted on how "they were not really being true in their mockery of femininity, they were just pretending", I don't think you'd give them that kind of benefit of the doubt, but nonetheless here you are almost smugly telling us that it's obvious we should give these people not only the benefit of the doubt, but our understanding and support.
No. While I do understand its total lack of seriousness, I think the "jokes" fell flat and merely exposed their inner passive aggressive traits, their misandrism, narcissism, autism, etc. However, even despite the fact that I don't like that kind of humour, who am I to stop anyone else from entertaining themselves? I mean, be my guests. No one was hurt by all this poor taste.
And it gets better: The whole point of saying "You can't be racist/sexist against white men" is not that one can have a racist or sexist attitude towards white men. Rather, the point is that the institution they reside in prevent such racism from taking effect.
Well that's wrong on many levels. First, language does matter. If you say you can't be "racist against white men", then that's what you mean, and not something else. The fringe left has this tendency to rewrite words and concepts as they please so they can get away with saying the nastiest **** to you and then coming back with "Oh but you see, in NewSpeak, what I have done is not really racism, coz Racism = Power + Privilege" (Oh yeah, these people are that mathematically impaired and say that sentence without skipping a beat). I'm sure that kind of speech will go well with the Judge, who is most probably bemusing at the outset of the case and thinking "I'm going to release this girl within a minute or so", only to hear this "intellectual artillery" of an argument and perhaps starting to have second thoughts about how safe is society with such an asinine ideologue on the loose.
The other wrong moment here is that "Whiteness" is something now that encapsulate the entirety of a human's identity now. So we have these women within the higher class (Laura Penny anyone?) telling "men" (some of which are living under bridges) that they are "all" much more privileged than her. It doesn't matter if she's driving a porsche or wearing two iWatches or whatever. She will spit at you for being a man working hard with a paltry wage and barely managing to keep a roof and she will call it "punching up".
And people eat this **** up. It's incredible.
Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.
Let's totally forget that Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn just went to the UN proposing that rules should be enacted against people who said that "They Suck". Let's totally forget that it was the Left that brought about these same Hate Speech Laws against racism and so on that are getting her. No. Let's blame the application of a law proposed and enacted by leftist activists against sexism and racism to.... wait for it.... The Patriarchy!
Because that totally makes sense! That's absolutely not a brainmelt of lacanian proportions!
-
Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.
I answered this before. Before you can successfully accuse the London police of racism or sexism you'd have to show that the London police is ignoring Londoners who act in the same manner as her.
You are trying to show that because worldwide there is a different standard for free speech and law enforcement, something something something, sexism and racism.
-
It's worse than that. He's accusing the police of enforcing the laws that activists like her proposed being enacted in Law. You can't have a bigger facepalm than that.
-
Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.
I answered this before. Before you can successfully accuse the London police of racism or sexism you'd have to show that the London police is ignoring Londoners who act in the same manner as her.
You are trying to show that because worldwide there is a different standard for free speech and law enforcement, something something something, sexism and racism.
I'm not accusing the london police force of racism or sexism, I am stating that it, as an institution, is preventing racism and sexism against white males.
-
You are implying that the same institution wouldn't do the same towards any other group, i.e. you are implying they are sexist/racist.
-
I wouldn't go that far, but based from what I have seen I am rather skeptical that anyone except her is going to get trouble for this... whatever it is.
-
There are news of people getting arrested in commonwealth countries for using speech with contents that skirt these laws over the years.
There was a guy arrested for tweeting he would bomb the airport as a joke.
There was a guy arrested for disagreeing with two women.
But somehow it's only an issue worthy of attention when Bahar Mustafa gets charged.
Let me be clear again, I am against these laws and against her being charged. However, I don't claim that the guy that was arrested for saying he would bomb the airport was a victim of misandry, why would I claim that Bahar Mustafa is a victim of misogyny when she gets charged?
Long story short, there is a tendency to blame misogyny every time a woman has something bad happen to her.
P.S.
Info regarding the case I mention above for those interested (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial)
-
I'd argue that threatening to bomb an airport is a bit more... realistic? Crying fire in a theater and that sorta thing. Not sure about the second example you mention, but I must say I'm not really willing to defend my obviously under-researched points at ths point (esp. as we're then again devolving into this he-said she-said ****).
Long story short, there is a tendency to blame misogyny every time a woman has something bad happen to her.
There is actually research that shows this particular tendency as being somewhat accurate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/22/pew_online_harassment_study_men_are_called_names_women_are_stalked_and_sexually.html).
-
So are the men who are being harassed, victims of misandry too?
-
Really, controlling undesirables? Really?
Death threats, the athmosphere of fear they create when you get hundreds of them without knowing how serious the other person on the line is, does hurt. It hurts because seeing people going trough such extreme lenghts to let you know they hate you for what other people said you did. Worse, you can never know the intent behind them - and you can argue that issuing death threats is essentially like crying wolf, but that story ended in death. It genuinely is about protecting people.
Why the **** do I even have to explain this to you?
It may hurt if someone is a more sensitive person and doesnt know that internet trolls should just be ignored in 99.9% of cases, but still, hurt feelings is not grounds for any criminal action. Protecting hurt feelings is not a job for the police, lol.
Protecting people from physical harm is, and in that case, I would argue that punishing threats is not just ineffective, but counterproductive. Because threats can act as a warning. We want the crazies to speak up before they do something.
So yes, it is mostly about controlling undesirables.
-
I wouldn't go that far, but based from what I have seen I am rather skeptical that anyone except her is going to get trouble for this... whatever it is.
If someone in a similar prominent position in the UK would tweet #killallblackmen or #killallwhitewomen, you dont think they would get in trouble? I think they would get in trouble just like her. I dont think her prosecution is fundamentally just, but it is not sexist or racist at all. She is the kind of obnoxious person who would gladly push for criminalising racism against blacks or sexism against women, so there is a certain irony that the same kind of laws are now equally being applied to her..
-
I think there is a more telling thing in what he said "she can't loose", no matter what happens she will be right.
Anything that can explain anything explains nothing. Her position is unfalsifiable, like "God did it".
Really, controlling undesirables? Really?
Death threats, the athmosphere of fear they create when you get hundreds of them without knowing how serious the other person on the line is, does hurt. It hurts because seeing people going trough such extreme lenghts to let you know they hate you for what other people said you did. Worse, you can never know the intent behind them - and you can argue that issuing death threats is essentially like crying wolf, but that story ended in death. It genuinely is about protecting people.
Why the **** do I even have to explain this to you?
Yes, really. I can't say anything against an individual who belongs to a protected minority group or concepts associated with a protected minority group without a accusations of *ism and that what I'm saying is hate speech and harassment. It creates a McCarthyesque climate that any disagreement those with power in the community will result in a primary color haired hate mod descending upon you and your family and your job. You have to be on your toes, you never know when a gift made by a female artist will be deemed counter revolutionary by someone who controls a feminist blog and your life's work will be threatened[1 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=shirtgate)]. Hell you don't even have to have done anything, if someone mishears part of what you say and reports it as hate speech you will have lost your job before you even get off the plane[2 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tim+hunt)]. If you're a satirist going after the wrong people you deserve to be murdered[3 (http://thoughtcatalog.com/nicole-mullen/2015/01/you-can-condemn-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-and-still-understand-that-the-cartoonists-deserved-to-be-murdered-for-being-racist/)]. You add speech laws into the mix now you also have to worry about ideological puritans trying to find some way to interpret anything you say in a way that goes against the law so they can imprison you. No, this is about making an example out of people so they don't speak up against making the world "better", about dragging people kicking and screaming into "better" world. I don't know about you but any world I have to be dragged kicking and screaming into I think is by definition not better.
You have to explain this to me because what I see is a return of witch trials and "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the GamerGate hashtag" and a general abandonment of reason in favor of ideological purity. You have to explain to me and other people watching from the sidelines why that's a good thing, because you have not yet managed to make questioning SocJus against the law.
and keep in mind all I'm saying is neither side should get the power to send the other to jail for the crime of speaking (or typing)
-
"Ah you should grow a thicker skin"
-
My point with the race thing was that the color of my skin, the concavity of my genitals, what I believe to be true about the universe doesn't change the truth of what I am saying (though that last one would, in a general sense, likely lead me to different conclusions it wouldn't change IF what I was say was true or not if I was saying the same thing). If you agree with that then I think we should just drop this line, though if you want to tell me why the color of my skin changes the validity of my argument I'd be interested in hearing how.
I haven't claimed anything remotely close to that. I can't even imagine where you have gotten the idea that I did. What I have claimed is that there are people in minorities who are pressurised into not speaking because of hate speech.
-
I have but a few minutes and I'm just checking in... did anyone, in the pages thus far, post the Popehat piece on this?
https://popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/
In short: When you wish for new laws, be very careful what you wish for. The irony of a person who generally fits the model of the current crop of "your speech I disagree with actively harms me" reactionaries being charged is incredible.
Also, this quote of hers:
She said: "There have been charges laid against me that I am racist and sexist towards white men.
"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.
"Therefore, women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”
Good luck applying your narrow definition of sexism and racism to the legal system. It will not work out well. The acceptance of these definitions is limited to a very narrow part of feminist sociological theory, and the courts will laugh in her face. Not that she actually deserves to face charges for unpopular (and frankly disagreeable) speech. This whole case is a great illustration is why government restriction on speech beyond narrowly-defined hate speech, incitement, true threats, and defamation are a terrible idea.
-
Well it's good to see you posting again Ryan, even if you're just repeating all of our talking points. Hell scrap that, it's always good to read sane things, no matter how many times they are repeated.
-
Well it's good to see you posting again Ryan, even if you're just repeating all of our talking points. Hell scrap that, it's always good to read sane things, no matter how many times they are repeated.
I've been busy and keep forgetting to check in.
-
I like this popehat guy.
-
https://popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/
finally got around to reading that. all I can say to it is this:
Yup
-
If popehat is correct over the reasons she was arrested, I'm going to have to agree that it's definitely a poor application of the law if not the law itself. Like I said before, that doesn't mean hate speech laws are inherently bad though.
-
Poorly defined hate speech laws are bad, tough. Maybe if these hate speech laws were much more narrowly defined, I would not be so opposed to them. Kinda like threats in the US, they are illegal, but the law really only applies to few special cases, not threats in general.
-
It's worth noting that only charges were made at the moment, and no one has been convicted yet. Only then we can really determine if the laws themselves are bad or the people charged with enforcing them are just idiots.
-
even if she is acquitted that doesn't mean the next person will be, or that it was the correct* decision this time. I think it's a useful discussion to have regardless the actual outcome.
(*in accordance with the law.)
-
this is why the world has judges and magistrates, to look at cases, throw out the BS ones, figure out the genuine ones, punish the guilty and set free the innocent.
-
Let's wait and see then. My hopes are quite lower than some of yours are guys.
-
this is why the world has judges and magistrates, to look at cases, throw out the BS ones, figure out the genuine ones, punish the guilty and set free the innocent.
Nah, I dont agree with this approach of "lets charge them and see what sticks". Law should be defined in such a clear and narrow way that BS cases rarely even make it in front of a judge. Especially since this is probably not the first application of this law, so there should be precedents.
Otherwise the law is too broad and should be reformulated. Because it is only a matter of time until people are unjustly convicted under too broad a law. Leaving too much space for interpretation of law in courts is a dangerous policy.
-
Is it the fault of the law or the enforcers if a good law is badly enforced? Want to bet that the cop that laid these charges didn't consult with the CPS beforehand? Because of they had, the crown prosecutor probably would have told them that the charge would fall over when exposed to the reasonable person test in court.
You have to remember that all of these laws exist within the context of English common law. That lays out some basic groundwork that can't simply be ignored.
-
Is it the fault of the law or the enforcers if a good law is badly enforced? Want to bet that the cop that laid these charges didn't consult with the CPS beforehand? Because of they had, the crown prosecutor probably would have told them that the charge would fall over when exposed to the reasonable person test in court.
You have to remember that all of these laws exist within the context of English common law. That lays out some basic groundwork that can't simply be ignored.
For those that dont know, the CPS is the Crown Prosecution Service, these are the guys who represent the state in criminal prosecutions and are the guys with last say before a case hits court