[Luis Dias]

You guys seriously should grow a thicker skin.

You got to be ****ting me.

[Bobboau]

no, he seriously has played the "NO U!" card.

out of nowhere I might add.

[Phantom Hoover]

I imagine he's being sarcastic. Frankly, you're all as bad as each other.

[Luis Dias]

Take it easy grandpa.

[Grizzly]

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?

[Bobboau]

"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.

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Turambar]

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.

[Bobboau]

You're so behind the times Turambar, we are making things "better" now!

[Grizzly]

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

---

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.

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Bobboau]

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 , 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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Bobboau]

not all laws are equally vulnerable.

[Grizzly]

True, but the blanket protections that Karajorma mentions are much stronger then any laws.

[Bobboau]

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

[Grizzly]

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.

[Bobboau]

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?

[Grizzly]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.