 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
> > person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
> > whatever reason he wants.
> >
> Unanimously supported action?
So what? We are talking about law here, not about opinion, unanimous
or not.
Just because people unanimously detest racist opinions doesn't mean
they should be outlawed any more than eg. if people unanimously detested
atheist opinions, or the opinions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the right to express
one's opinions should be unalienable, no matter how much you hate those
opinions. The moment we start banning certain opinions, we are entering
a totalitarian form of government where thought crimes are criminalized.
No thanks.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 3:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
>>> person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
>>> whatever reason he wants.
>>>
>
>> Unanimously supported action?
>
> So what? We are talking about law here, not about opinion, unanimous
> or not.
>
> Just because people unanimously detest racist opinions doesn't mean
> they should be outlawed any more than eg. if people unanimously detested
> atheist opinions, or the opinions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
>
> Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the right to express
> one's opinions should be unalienable, no matter how much you hate those
> opinions. The moment we start banning certain opinions, we are entering
> a totalitarian form of government where thought crimes are criminalized.
> No thanks.
>
I have no problems with what you have said above. In fact I agree with
your sentiments.
What I do have a problem with is: [Insert your preferred
group/individual here] is not like us and lets go and kill them.
Free Speech would allow that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 6:10, Stephen wrote:
> Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
Mostly in practice, too.
> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortio
n?
Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free speech
doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you say.
> Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
> whites, even though they believed it?
Any number of talk show hosts?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of
-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/
The KKK?
> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
I'd like to see a cite of that. There are "hate crime" laws, but you have
to
be breaking a law in the first place for it to be a hate crime.
> It also has Free Speech Zones where the government may regulate the tim
e,
> place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
Yep. And you know what? If you read it, you see that lots of people think
such a thing is an attack of free speech.
> The implication being that
> outside of these zones you cannot have true free expression.
Its original purpose was to ensure that only the free expression occurred
,
and not physical attacks.
> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
crime
> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
Incitement to riot is not a question of speech. It's a question of
conspiracy. If you're not likely to *actually* incite a riot, it's OK to
try. Free speech is free until you actually try to commit a crime. Talkin
g
about how to rob the bank is legal until you actually start gathering up
the
tools you discussed. Just like playing D&D is fine until you actually go
out
in the real world and start beheading dwarves.
> Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the ti
me
> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say th
at
on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in my house
"
means you're violating the right to assembly.
> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech i
s a
> misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.
I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as you
start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then it's not
free speech.
>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>
>
> That is a different kettle of fish.
Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 6:54, Warp wrote:
> The problem with hate crime laws is that they are extremely subjective,
FWIW, I think the way hate crimes work is that it's an extra punishment on
top of the crime you already committed. If you beat someone up, that's
assault. If you call them racist names, that's free speech. If you beat
someone up while calling them racist names, that's probably assault and a
hate crime.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 9:30, Stephen wrote:
> Free Speech would allow that.
Yeah, as long as you don't *actually* go kill them.
I'm against war, too, but I think if a country's leadership has a country's
army attack my country, my country's leadership should send my country's
army to attack back. Even tho they'll likely end up killing people who had
no say in the manner in their own country.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 5:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 6:10, Stephen wrote:
>> Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
>
> Mostly in practice, too.
>
I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly
implies sometimes not, I think.
>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
> Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free
> speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you say.
>
Fair point. But why?
>> Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
>> whites, even though they believed it?
>
> Any number of talk show hosts?
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/
>
>
> The KKK?
>
I stand corrected.
>> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
>> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
>
> I'd like to see a cite of that. There are "hate crime" laws, but you
> have to be breaking a law in the first place for it to be a hate crime.
>
I accept that as you live there.
[Snip]
>
>> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
>> crime
>> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
>
> Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
>
Does that include bullying?
> Just like playing D&D is fine
> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarves.
>
Not the same thing.
> > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the time
>> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
>
> This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say
> that on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in my
> house" means you're violating the right to assembly.
>
With this you miss my point. In 2000, Uncle Ken wrote “It is with regret
that this message serves as official notice that Matt Giwer's
authorization to connect to news.povray.org has been revoked. This is a
unanimously supported action on the part of the News Server
Administration and was not done without considerable deliberation on our
part.”
I asked Warp if he agreed with that at the time and if he had changed
his mind.
>> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech
>> is a
>> misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.
>
> I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as
> you start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then
> it's not free speech.
>
But I am not saying free speech is OK.
>>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>>
>>
>> That is a different kettle of fish.
>
> Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
>
Is that not a straw man?
I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
The laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yours?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 5:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 9:30, Stephen wrote:
>> Free Speech would allow that.
>
> Yeah, as long as you don't *actually* go kill them.
>
> I'm against war, too, but I think if a country's leadership has a
> country's army attack my country, my country's leadership should send my
> country's army to attack back. Even tho they'll likely end up killing
> people who had no say in the manner in their own country.
>
Woosh! That went over my head.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 11:43, Stephen wrote:
> I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly impli
es
> sometimes not, I think.
Sure. But to the extent that it isn't, it's recognised as a bad thing.
It's like me saying "bribery is illegal" and you saying "but people still
bribe politicians." Sure, but that's not a *good* thing. That doesn't me
an
we want to condone it.
>>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abort
ion?
>>
>> Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free
>> speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you
say.
>
> Fair point. But why?
Why what?
>>> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit
a
>>> crime
>>> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
>>
>> Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
>>
> Does that include bullying?
Some people are certainly hoping to make it so. I think we would have to
distinguish mocking from bullying, since when I was a kid, bullying someo
ne
involved beating them up, not just calling them names.
>> Just like playing D&D is fine
>> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarve
s.
>
> Not the same thing.
Ah, OK. So now, tell me why they're not the same thing. That's the point.
:-)
The problem is that once you open the door and say "Well, we don't want
people 'bullying' dwarves", you start getting the sort of nonsense where
people publishing D&D books get arrested.
>> > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the
time
>>> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
>>
>> This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say
>> that on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in
my
>> house" means you're violating the right to assembly.
>>
>
> With this you miss my point.
I still don't see your point. Anyway, I think Warp answered you.
I'll support your right to say that niggers are stupid. I'll also support
the black guy kicking you out of his party for saying so.
>> I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as
>> you start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then
>> it's not free speech.
>
> But I am not saying free speech is OK.
So you want to regulate *all* speech? Or do you want to have a pre-define
d
list of things you're allowed to talk about, and the opinions you're allo
wed
to express about those topics?
>>>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>>>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
>>
> Is that not a straw man?
Not to my knowledge.
> I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
Free speech allows you to express whatever opinions you like. It doesn't
allow you to publish lies about private citizens. You're certainly allowe
d
to say "I think Joe Bloggs is a paedophile."
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want
. The
> laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
> Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yo
urs?
You're allowed to say anything that's true, certainly. If it's phrased as
an
opinion, you're allowed to express that opinion. I believe in the USA you
're
even allowed to publish lies about a public figure, on the grounds that a
public figure has a forum under which to express the truth. You publishin
g a
newspaper article that incorrectly says they are a pedophile about someon
e
who has no easy way of responding in the same forum is what's slander or
libel. But in the USA, truth is an absolute defense against the accusatio
n
of slander or libel. (Unlike the UK, as I understand it. You wouldn't be
allowed to say Bloggs is a pedophile even if it's true in the UK.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 17/03/2012 15:43, Stephen escreveu:
> I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
BTW, it never entered my logical programming mind moot statements such
as that. Someone comes up to you and say "You're an asshole!" and
you're supposed to be offended? Let's take at look at it of both sides:
1) you're an asshole. Why should you be offended with the truth?
2) you're not an asshole. Why should you be offended by a liar telling
a lie?
Yes, I'm aware it probably has to do with what others think of you, but
what others think of me is not really my concern: I have not much voice
about what they should think of me besides trying to appease both greeks
and trojans.
In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
And where exactly would you draw the line?
You see how this is going to the direction of "if someone gets offended,
it should be illegal", which in turn makes almost everything illegal, which
in turn is completely unworkable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
