Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Taliban are amassing for war


Kurshok
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Anderson said:

 But again, IMHO the idea just needs to be more precise, better tuned, jurisprudence needs uniformity. Hate speech needs to be weight against other rights. It's too restrictive to see hate speech just as another gimmick that makes the state more authoritarian.

 

So we agree that it's not precise.  What's your argument for having it at all?  What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?

 

2 hours ago, Anderson said:

 

"Personal attacks" in this case serve as a paraphrasing of hate speech. What we mean is to protect a person or group from personal attacks that instigate violence.

 

Directly inciting violence is already against the law.  You don't need hate speech laws for that. 

 

2 hours ago, Anderson said:

Well, yeah, generally there is more peace in countries that have and enforce hate speech laws, compared to the homicide rate in the US.

 

If you're trying to draw a direct casual relationship between hate speech laws and homicide, you're going to have to do better than that.  I can show a correlation between absolute government censorship and low homicide rates...but I don't think anyone would accept that as a justification for government censorship.

 

2 hours ago, Anderson said:

 

I am arguing against absolute freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, correct. But it should not be absolute. That would disregard other rights that the US Constitution does not protect such as the right to privacy. Freedom of speech is not so important as to render it absolute. There simply need to be reasonable guarantees for it to work.

 

I haven't seen anyone here (or anywhere else) arguing for absolute freedom of speech, so let's put that straw man to bed.  If you agree that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, then it follows that any government wanting to restrict it must have a good reason for doing so.  So let's start there.  Why do societies need hate speech laws?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springheel said:

 

So we agree that it's not precise.  What's your argument for having it at all?  What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?

 

 

Directly inciting violence is already against the law.  You don't need hate speech laws for that. 

 

 

If you're trying to draw a direct casual relationship between hate speech laws and homicide, you're going to have to do better than that.  I can show a correlation between absolute government censorship and low homicide rates...but I don't think anyone would accept that as a justification for government censorship.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone here (or anywhere else) arguing for absolute freedom of speech, so let's put that straw man to bed.  If you agree that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, then it follows that any government wanting to restrict it must have a good reason for doing so.  So let's start there.  Why do societies need hate speech laws?

 

Precision is better or worse, varying by country.

The argument is that hate speech offers unprecedented protection for historically persecuted groups and individuals. Far from everyone can litigate in their own interests when they have a case. Legal aid is often ineffective and isn't always offered to victims. Hate speech laws are one of many areas to compensate for these downsides. Whether hate speech laws are necessary, at its core depends if there are similar or analogical laws in the country. If they do, one can only be liable only by using one of these laws anyway because of the principle not to punish or judge the same person twice for the same act. But not all countries have anything comparative.

 

Inciting violence is not always against the law everywhere. Meanwhile laws don't always consider the special features that hate speech laws had in mind when they were drafted - aggravating circumstances regarding the incitement of resentment, violence against vulnerable categories of groups and individuals.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but we're talking about democratic countries or at least hybrid regimes? If so, the homicide statistic should be fairly accurate. It's easy to see how the lack of progressive laws, including hate speech laws has a negative effect on society. And it's not just about ticking a box that the law was drafted, voted and ratified. It's about actually enforcing it correctly.

 

Societies need hate speech laws to: a. Ensure the accountability of state actors such as police, social assistance especially when facing cases of discrimination; b. End the impunity and perpetration of violence; c. Defuse historical inter-cultural, inter-ethnic feuds; d. Facilitate healthy communication between communities as opposed to knee-jerk reactions and polaarization; e. Prevent hate crimes. And many more.

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an important distinction that's not really been adressed is that the primary aim of the moderation taking place on most forums is to maintain a welcoming community in which constructive interactions can take place.

Threads that start on this kind of premise are, in my opinion, bound to descend into bigotry and toxicity, and some even see hate speech here, even if it's ostensibly not intended.

I've only just seen the effect bigoted discussions can have on a community when a new private server went up for an old discontinued MMO. The moderation was largely absent at first, leaving the racism/homophobia/toxicity/etc. etc. unchecked. The result was that players were leaving soon after joining because that kind of stuff seemed to be accepted; interested players were advised not to join that server because of the community; and parents said they didn't want to introduce their kids to it. This is the kind of stuff that makes people feel upset and take distance, as some of the comments here indicated.

We can and should ask everyone who comes here to bring in a basic level of courtesy, out of respect for everyone else. Almost everything in this thread could probably have been said without allegations of hate speech by choosing a calmer way of expression (without apparent "hate").

Obviously no one wants to take on the role of a schoolyard teacher mediating every single little spat, and this community is mature enough not to need it. But I think a thread dealing with a sensitive subject, such as attitudes toward a part of the population, needs to be moderated to avoid harm to the community.

We can have the discussion about the extent of free speech if, despite this, there are calls for crimes against humanity, attempts to dehumanise groups based on religion/ethnicity/etc. or other severe incidents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The argument is that hate speech offers unprecedented protection for historically persecuted groups and individuals.

 

Again, this is incredibly vague.  Protection from what

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2021 at 1:45 PM, Kurshok said:

Well I refuse to just shut the fuck up and let evil win without a fight in the world. Fuck the cartels, fuck the Islamist cause, fuck Catholic Priest child molesters, fuck the KKK, fuck censorship, and fuck the gutless losers who are too obsessed with nonstop pleasure to notice the world around them is turning to shit.

What about "evil" are "freespeechers" not because of "freespeech" but 'cause they're manipulating opinions with "freespeching" victimhood?

'cause that's the real reality and not the fictional one.

 

"Freespeech" is the vessel for its own destruction. That's the intrinsic problem in a world where humans still obey to tribal forces. Let's put X against Y thanks to "controversial arguments" (I'm free to speech!!1111 You technocratic fascists, you fake moralists can't stop me!!11111 YOU ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE) and watch the world burn.

 

Just say a word.....

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dragofer said:

Threads that start on this kind of premise are, in my opinion, bound to descend into bigotry and toxicity, and some even see hate speech here, even if it's ostensibly not intended.

There's also the potential for destroyed or at least damaged reputations. I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience I've found myself disliking people I used to respect, whether that respect came from things they've said in the past, or perhaps things they made and shared on the forum and community. People who normally seem perfectly well adjusted, friendly and welcome can have the absolute worst opinions about certain groups of people that are completely unjustified and extremely hateful, that you wouldn't have even realized they held unless they were provoked into a political discussion.

Now I'm not talking about anyone in particular here; this forum is generally one of the better ones, but it's just something I've noticed about political discussion on the Internet - it seems to bring out the worst in people (not always, but often enough).

A word of warning, Agent Denton. This was a simulated experience; real LAMs will not be so forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Anderson said:

If so, the homicide statistic should be fairly accurate. It's easy to see how the lack of progressive laws, including hate speech laws has a negative effect on society.

Again, that's a "vaccines cause autism" correlation fallacy. There is no specific evidence that the First Amendment is the cause of homicide in America, rather than other factors such as the widespread availability of firearms, lack of access to healthcare or mental health support, extreme inequality or wider cultural issues.

It is never valid to look at a particular country's crime rate, pick a random aspect of that country's laws, and then argue to those laws are the direct cause of the crime statistics. That is just political rhetoric, not science.

12 hours ago, Dragofer said:

I've only just seen the effect bigoted discussions can have on a community when a new private server went up for an old discontinued MMO. The moderation was largely absent at first, leaving the racism/homophobia/toxicity/etc. etc. unchecked. The result was that players were leaving soon after joining because that kind of stuff seemed to be accepted; interested players were advised not to join that server because of the community; and parents said they didn't want to introduce their kids to it.

In my experience, hyper-moderated gaming forums are some of the most toxic I've ever seen. This doesn't prove that moderation makes them toxic of course, but it does indicate that moderation isn't a total solution.

Even if you ban the worst types of language, racial slurs and the like, people still find ways to indirectly insult each other with endless comments like "Wrong!", "Learn to read", "Some really stupid comments in this thread", "So much suck and fail" and so on. Perhaps such comments drive away fewer people than directly calling them a "cunt" or a "n*gger", but it's certainly not the case that aggressive moderation automatically leads to a pleasant, welcoming community.

At worst, it might even lead to a community of idiots like RPGNet, where special snowflake social-justice moderators give you a long list of political opinions you must hold (even off-site) before you're allowed to use the forum.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zerg Rush said:

This is a good example of the risks of Hate and violent speeches, the History is repeating and hour to stop this.

 

 

Being italian I can only say these nationalistic fools are ironically Putin's puppets in his plans.

Casapound (yes, EZRA Pound inspired) people are our nazbol - proper neo-nazists are linked to other political movements and tipically to soccer ultras fanatical crews - and they're linked to Dugin and Limonov vision of the "Eurasia" project.

They're literally socialists (better, dirigists -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme ) AND nationalists: they simply don't realise their proximity to the stalinist model of the state and the society.

Not strictly traditionalists but they hate the liberal model of a globalized world.

 

On the other hand - about real parties playing in the electoral game - Salvini's "Lega" (it's a long story since the secessionist Bossi's "Lombardy's League" from the '80s) is tied for its half to Putin interests in Europe and Meloni's "Fratelli d'Italia" to US GOP.

 

So these people are nothing but tools in the hands of greater powers (greater than UE).....with the promise of "freeing" us from the "global chains" ahah.

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with your observation, but you oversimplify the problem. National socialism has nothing to do with socialism, by far the socialist treatment of a minority of elites, but not the socialist treatment of the people in general. Fascism is the maximum expression of the current model of the so-called neo-liberalism, which sees the people as mere raw material for doing business. It is irrelevant what label is put on it, it always ends in a dictatorship with a single party, for the benefit of a few and a mufti who rules over all, it is irrelevant if his name is Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or that fat boy from Korea from North. It does not correspond to any political ideology, other than the lust for power and the greed of some economic powers.
The video about Italy is just one example, there are similar observations in practically all the countries of the 'civilized' world, where due to an economic crisis populist groups of the extreme right gain strength and visibility, this happened in the 1930s in Germany and is repeating itself now, with politicians using almost the same phrases and speeches as the Nazis at the time, calling existing governments illegitimate, defaming them and obstructing parliamentary work in any way possible, exactly as in Nazi Germany or in the coup d'état with a civil war in Spain.
There is this phrase of 'who does not remember the mistakes of the past, is condemned to repeat them', but it is worse if the past is falsified, denying their mistakes, cleaning the image of these dictators and hiding their atrocities.
This is what these far-right politicians do, aided by the like-minded media and ignorant and influential people who believe them.
This is what I am currently viewing with considerable concern.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascism is the maximum expression of the current model of the so-called neo-liberalism, which sees the people as mere raw material for doing business. 

You're preaching to the choir 😛

It's why our far right party ("Fratelli d'Italia") is so tied to US GOP. They simply use "socialist"(but only for italians) propaganda to gain (italian) people's vote. Of course they're the maximum degenerate espression of the liberalist model (but they accuse the liberals and progressives to be the degenerates, in the same manner of US republican/conservative politicians)

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Springheel said:

 

Again, this is incredibly vague.  Protection from what

 

Protection from the majority. I think you yourself once wrote somewhere that in any country majorities tend to impose their agenda on the minorities. I'm paraphrasing. I don't remember where you wrote it but you may recall it. I think you responded to me on some cringe philosophic, religious post.

But my idea is that hate speech counterbalances those disadvantages that any minority suffers in an uneven, multicultural society. It's better to make a mistake trying than not trying at all. The mistakes are always the result of bad interpretation and execution - much more rarely due to bad laws. It all depends on the powers that be on the top of the power structure in each of the branches of the government.

 

8 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

Again, that's a "vaccines cause autism" correlation fallacy. There is no specific evidence that the First Amendment is the cause of homicide in America, rather than other factors such as the widespread availability of firearms, lack of access to healthcare or mental health support, extreme inequality or wider cultural issues.

It is never valid to look at a particular country's crime rate, pick a random aspect of that country's laws, and then argue to those laws are the direct cause of the crime statistics. That is just political rhetoric, not science.

In my experience, hyper-moderated gaming forums are some of the most toxic I've ever seen. This doesn't prove that moderation makes them toxic of course, but it does indicate that moderation isn't a total solution.

Even if you ban the worst types of language, racial slurs and the like, people still find ways to indirectly insult each other with endless comments like "Wrong!", "Learn to read", "Some really stupid comments in this thread", "So much suck and fail" and so on. Perhaps such comments drive away fewer people than directly calling them a "cunt" or a "n*gger", but it's certainly not the case that aggressive moderation automatically leads to a pleasant, welcoming community.

At worst, it might even lead to a community of idiots like RPGNet, where special snowflake social-justice moderators give you a long list of political opinions you must hold (even off-site) before you're allowed to use the forum.

- The fact that current legal precedent, statutes, laws don't provide for hate speech laws does not exclude that these laws are the only cause for homicide in the USA. But they are all connected. Over the top exaggerations based on scaremongering fallacies are a guarantee to ensure the status quo.

Well, politics is everything that the law is not. Law is predictable, stable. Law can be executed with the coercive force of the state. Politics represents everything that we don't agree with. Politics is everything else outside of the law. The problem is to make certain politics into law and state policies while other politics remain theory.

 

- I agree, sometimes well placed euphemism hurt more than outright swearing. But I think ultimately that's bad moderation too. Some forums restrict discussion on breaking copyright laws. Whereas other forums just have members that recourse to mockery and flouting users. Ultimately hate speech isn't just swearing at things randomly. It's about deliberately having a target one is aiming with intent, constantly, aggressively, without remorse and anything human. Dehumanize and so on.

I've also seen public email subscription groups such as Google Groups with a relaxed attitude on hate speech that led to administrators being harassed by users. And I'm talking about professional groups with lawyers, journalists, mass media representatives. When there's profit, group interests - they have no limits in particular. I guess it works the same way on social networks where you can't even trace anyone. Anyone can be anonymous. So, IMHO who cares if you apply the ban hammer a little more often than necessary? One can always create a new account, try a new identity, start with a new page. But the community overall shouldn't suffer because of spam like that.

 

The problem of our age is lots of informational junk. Unlimited free speech does not help. It makes the problem worse.

Perhaps some of you, like me, believed that the internet will help the uninformed become smarter. I still didn't lose that belief. But I also believe information must be filtered. Life is too short to read everything. We need to select useful information on public sources. Since that is often hard, especially in off-topic - at least block the totally inadequate nonsense. The average user will say thank you.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Quote


 
20 hours ago, Springheel said:

 

Again, this is incredibly vague.  Protection from what

 

Protection from the majority.

 

 

The original question was " What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

This response still doesn't provide an answer.  Protection from the majority doing what??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Springheel said:
 

 

The original question was " What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

This response still doesn't provide an answer.  Protection from the majority doing what??

 

I think this question was answered with Zerg Rush's post/video: Violently persecuting minorities after being incited by politicians or toher people through scaremongering. As discussed largely in this thread, the definition of "hate speech" is very vague, but it cannot be denied that there is rheotric that can encite the masses to violence against (mainly minority) people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Destined said:

I think this question was answered with Zerg Rush's post/video: Violently persecuting minorities after being incited by politicians or toher people through scaremongering. As discussed largely in this thread, the definition of "hate speech" is very vague, but it cannot be denied that there is rheotric that can encite the masses to violence against (mainly minority) people.

I don't want to get into the specifics of any particular politician or political party, as that video does, since I'm not familiar enough with the politics of Italy.

As for directly inciting violence, I've already pointed out that this is already illegal in North America.  So is actual violence.

So again, I'm still left without an answer to the question "What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the question that there are laws against certain Hate speech, if the judges related to a certain ideology interpret it in one way or another.
In Spain there are several examples of this. A rapper who insults the royal house in his songs faces 3 years in prison for this, while a journalist who threatens to kill a politician on the left in a tweet is okay. Nothing happens to insult or discredit a homosexual or an immigrant, but if he is still punished for making jokes about the cross in the Valley of the Fallen of Franco for hurting religious sentiment, etc.

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Springheel said:

I don't want to get into the specifics of any particular politician or political party, as that video does, since I'm not familiar enough with the politics of Italy.

As for directly inciting violence, I've already pointed out that this is already illegal in North America.  So is actual violence.

So again, I'm still left without an answer to the question "What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

The point is that the violence was not directly incited. The fearmongering and badmouthing led to increased aggression and violence against certain groups (in this case immigrants). That this violence was tolerated is, of course, another point, but the aggression itself was caused by speeches that were allowed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole concept of protecting "historically persecuted groups" just seems like nonsense to me. Go back far enough in history and everyone has been both the persecutor and persecuted. So long as actual violence and threats of violence remain illegal what does it matter what words any group speaks against another? Its just words and ideas not action. I cannot understand how people can so willingly give up their freedoms in order to "protect" people that have already been protected legally for decades. It all just keeps certain discussions from even happening. Look at racial relations in the US right now. You cannot hope to reach any actual decisions or make any real progress when you cannot even have a remotely honest or open discussion about the topic when some groups are deemed protected and others privileged. And to say that words lead to actions is just silly. Someone who has chosen to commit a certain action will almost certainly speak or write words about it prior and after. That does not mean that the words created or caused the action though. Silence would not prevent any action in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too (LOL) I'm NOT in love with "protection" policies (for ANY human group) but what about freedom to manipulate others thanks to the fascination of "controversial arguments" ?  That's the real problem for me (I mean the engagement process that politicians must feed like a demonic beast to get votes - and after that do whatever they want, because they too are free), the one with unforeseen consequences.

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between what is said and what is done, there is often only one step, as I said before, depending on the person who says it. Among the population there are many people with little discretion of their own and that is why they are highly influenced, because obedience to Authority in consecuence, reinforced by a politics of fear.
It has already been amply shown that signaling a group as 'enemies of the state' or as 'guilty of a crisis' can lead to dire consequences.
A good example of the influence of many people is the well-known Milgram experiment.

If a drunkard in a bar rants against foreigners or homosexuals, obviously it will not have major consequences, but it will if it is done by a public person, politician or journalist.

Edited by Zerg Rush
  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Springheel said:

I don't want to get into the specifics of any particular politician or political party, as that video does, since I'm not familiar enough with the politics of Italy.

"Partito Democratico" = USA Democrats (after the fall of the socialist Left the actual Left is literally a clone of USA Democratic Party), progressive-liberal but not so liberist (well, in reality they are so it's why I consider them a USA Democrats clone - they got the same nicknames too "libtards" -> "PDioti" = PD + idiots and it's not by chance, it's of course because the Right got the same spin doctors of the GOP school)

"Forza Italia" (now in decline thanks to Berlusconi's age) = classic liberal and liberist - a bit of libertarian too about economics. It's mortally tied to Berlusconi's family and business (Mediaset TV network/Mediolanum bank).

"Movimento 5 Stelle" = "There's no more Right or Left, we're beyond that" - criptolobbistic movement using "socialist" populism as electoral form of engagement. Really a weasel party, linked for years to the Casaleggio's family foundation. It's like an "Internet Era" Forza Italia (Internet instead of TV as tool of electoral engagement and an ecology spin instead of the economy spin of Forza Italia).

Inspired by the French Revolution (the party members used to call themselves "Citizens") with the declared goal to bring in this world the "Direct Democracy through Internet" and a Robespierre-like vision of the justice system.....

Salvini's "Lega" = liberist but not progressive, massively - I mean MASSIVELY - fueled by a Trump-like propaganda but tied to Putin (and directly to Limonov and Dugin) and to Gazprom interests in Italy.

The name now means nothing 'cause it's a party born from the ashes of the Lombardy secessionists ("Lega Lombarda") thanks to several actors from old right and far-right parties absorbed by Forza Italia (Berlusconi) in the middle of 2000s. These actors used the structure of the skeletal remains of the "Lega Lombarda" to create a Trump-like movement, but with the fall of Trumpism they've taken a big hit and are now the right wingers look to "Fratelli d'Italia" . Salvini acts as frontman (it's a master poser since ever) and "carismatic leader" exactly in the Trump's manner. It's the Trump-clone party in EVERY aspect.

"Fratelli d'Italia" = liberist-dirigists and not progressive, pure nationalists and really GOP-like -  totally tied to NATO (no russian interests there). You could call them "pragmatic grandsons of neofascists" and they're becoming the biggest party in the country eroding the "Lega" electoral pool day by day after the Covid-19.

 

And yes, they're all clowns. Italy's political situation is like a "special kids" 😛 Kindergarten.....being the actual special kids more fun and intelligent.

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Springheel said:
 

 

The original question was " What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

This response still doesn't provide an answer.  Protection from the majority doing what??

 

 

9 hours ago, Springheel said:

As for directly inciting violence, I've already pointed out that this is already illegal in North America.  So is actual violence.

So again, I'm still left without an answer to the question "What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

 

Ok let me approach this from a different angle. There's ill will euphemisms thrown around, fake bot accounts, provocateurs that cultivate and spread the angst. Usually to the benefit of some political establishments and activists. Not all of that is direct incitement of violence. And working class people don't have the time to do mental exercises and balance this against other opinions. They pick the most sparkling, most loud, most angry views. It's enough to keep throwing fuel at this partisan stand-off for activists and politicians to reap the profits.

As society evolves - new categories of population groups can fall under the protection of hate speech laws - new LGBTQ+ groups, new religions etc. Laws are always late for changes in society. That's why hate speech laws are needed. Whereas old hate speech laws often become deprecated and in need of updates, adjustments, improvements.

The line is crossed when satire, irony is associated with the author. Many call out the cancel culture as being the culprit. But even here, people simply aren't used to a new perspective on their favorite media. Nor does it mean that ordinary, general discussions on more general, abstract topics should be restricted. Nonetheless the point is that politicians and public figures can always be criticized. Ordinary citizens however, may be protected from some criticism, especially if they do not expose themselves as public figures. This protection can be in respect of their private life, their reputation or their freedom of speech and information. Depending on the case. We have tons of cases of stalking, mobbing becoming more frequent as half the planet is now connected to the internet. The general rule is that the more public you are as an individual - the more inescapable is criticism against you. I figure that this is fair. It's not perfect, but it's a much better approach than letting ordinary citizens be harassed by politicians who have money and media on their side. That is why hate speech laws exist. To outbalance this unfairness.

 

Here's a few curious case study examples of how hate speech can work in the ECHR -

Case of Nix v. Germany

This case concerned the applicant’s conviction for posting picture of a Nazi leader and
swastika in a blog. The applicant argued that the domestic courts had failed to take into
account that his blog post was intended as a protest against school and employment
offices’ discrimination against children from a migrant background.
The Court declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
While accepting that the applicant had not intended to spread totalitarian propaganda, to
incite violence, or to utter hate speech, and might have thought he was contributing to a
debate of public interest, it considered that the domestic courts could not be reproached
for concluding that he had used the picture of f the former SS chief Heinrich Himmler
with the swastika as an “eye-catching” device, which was one of the things the law
penalising the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations had been intended to
prevent (the so-called “communicative taboo”). Domestic case-law was clear that the
critical use of such symbols was not enough to exempt someone from criminal liability
and that what was required was clear and obvious opposition to Nazi ideology. In the
applicant’s case, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’
assessment that the applicant had not clearly and obviously rejected Nazi ideology in his
blog post. The Court therefore concluded that the domestic authorities had provided
relevant and sufficient reasons for interfering with the applicant’s right to freedom of
expression and had not gone beyond their room for manoeuvre (“margin of
appreciation”) in the case.

 

Case of Lilliendahl v. Iceland
12 May 2020 (decision on the admissibility)
This case concerned the applicant’s conviction and fine for homophobic comments he
had made in response to an online article. The applicant alleged that his conviction had
breached his right to freedom of expression.
The Court held that the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of
the Convention was manifestly ill-founded and rejected it as inadmissible. It found that
the applicant’s comments had amounted to hate speech within the meaning of its case-
law. The Court accepted in particular the Icelandic Supreme Court’s finding that the
comments had been “serious, severely hurtful and prejudicial”, and that the decision
which had originally sparked the debate, concerning measures to strengthen education
in schools on lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender matters, had not warranted such a
severe reaction. The domestic courts’ decisions in the case, taken after an extensive
balancing exercise between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the rights
of gender and sexual minorities, had therefore been reasonable and justified.

 

Case of Gündüz v. Turkey
4 December 2003
The applicant was a self-proclaimed member of an Islamist sect. During a televised
debate broadcast in the late evening, he spoke very critically of democracy, describing
contemporary secular institutions as “impious”, fiercely criticising secular and democratic
principles and openly calling for the introduction of Sharia law. He was convicted of
openly inciting the population to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded
on membership of a religion or denomination. The applicant alleged a violation of his
right to freedom of expression.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of
the Convention. It noted in particular that the applicant, who had represented the
extremist ideas of his sect, with which the public was already familiar, had been taking
an active part in an animated public discussion. That pluralist debate had sought to
present the sect and its unorthodox views, including the notion that democratic values
were incompatible with its conception of Islam. The topic had been the subject of
widespread debate in the Turkish media and concerned a problem of general interest.
The Court considered that the applicant’s remarks could not be regarded as a call to
violence or as hate speech based on religious intolerance. The mere fact of defending
sharia, without calling for violence to introduce it, could not be regarded as hate speech.

 

3 hours ago, ate0ate said:

The whole concept of protecting "historically persecuted groups" just seems like nonsense to me. Go back far enough in history and everyone has been both the persecutor and persecuted. So long as actual violence and threats of violence remain illegal what does it matter what words any group speaks against another? Its just words and ideas not action. I cannot understand how people can so willingly give up their freedoms in order to "protect" people that have already been protected legally for decades. It all just keeps certain discussions from even happening. Look at racial relations in the US right now. You cannot hope to reach any actual decisions or make any real progress when you cannot even have a remotely honest or open discussion about the topic when some groups are deemed protected and others privileged. And to say that words lead to actions is just silly. Someone who has chosen to commit a certain action will almost certainly speak or write words about it prior and after. That does not mean that the words created or caused the action though. Silence would not prevent any action in any way.

Everyone has been the persecutor and persecuted? There's probably a few exceptions to that with some really zen populations. At least if you mean military conquest and such - like the Tibetan people who were usually on the defensive and not invading. Other than that there's groups like the Falun Gong/Falun Dafa group. They were mostly persecuted. The Romani people are traditionally viewed as invading migrants although they've always been slaves in Europe for centuries until the trend to abolish slavery started in the 19'th century. Nonetheless even after the Holocaust against them, they aren't the most protected group atm. Romani people never had the money and influence like the Jews to create an image of their own victim-hood.

Btw this is another curious point - like, does it really have any meaning to argue today that slavery is ok from a free speech perspective? It's really political if slavery conduct on the scale of a state can be called genocide. There's a lot of whitewashing here just for the sake of argument. For example, labor camps were present in the US during WW2. At the same time America used to drug its own citizens in experiments to create the ultimate soldier, to torture and extract confessions like Project ARTICHOKE, Project MKUltra, Project CHATTER. Half a century ago lobotomy was acceptable in psychiatry, even if it turns people into legumes. Persecuting all the whistleblowers after this means that the USA has a sham instead of genuine free speech. This free speech is meaningless.

The peace movement of hippies eventually died out anyway. And so will the current BLM and the cancel culture. But generally the leftists of yesterday will remain leftist and their progeny usually follows in their steps just like the last generation. So I wouldn't be so categorical that things have radically changed lately. It's the same old battle.

 

I don't really "get" the argument that "It just keeps certain discussions from even happening." And that "you cannot have have a remotely honest or open discussion of the topic". This is so abstract that this argument is meaningless. I mean it depends on who you're talking to. Talk to more people and odds are you'll find someone on the left who is open on this. You won't talk to anyone if don't commit to being open minded and outgoing. There's just some people with whom you'll never have any psychological contact. Ever. Period. If they've been gang raped by whites, what are the odds they will be delighted to accept the POV of whites? Don't they have the right to have a small bias? Not everyone feels great about talking on controversial topics. You can't force them to talk to you. I'm extrapolating but you get the point. These wounds don't heal so fast. Rome wasn't built in a day. Other people can be open. There's as many opinions as there are people. Each individual is different.

The point of hate speech is to create a proper atmosphere where everyone can be encouraged to speak out. Even uncomfortable views from minorities or often overlooked opinions. It just sets limits that are common sense.

 

The speakers probably won't be involved in violence. They reap the profits.

The little people will suffer and die as always.

I would argue on the contrary, silence allows people to ruminate, to ponder more on what they want to do with their lives. I don't see how endless bickering against minorities can help. I mean, looking for enemies outside is a basic psychological defense mechanism.

Edited by Anderson
  • Like 1

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's enough to keep throwing fuel at this partisan stand-off for activists and politicians to reap the profits."

just cut the politicians from the equation..... 😛

Today politics are only markerting and engagement dynamics. A politician is nothing more than a "Chief Sales Officer" position and the prepackaged ideologies feeding sick or deranged egos are the products to sell to a more and more desperate electorate (and a politician NEEDS a desperate electorate).

Ah, the (representative) "demo*N*cracy".....

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw for everyone who thinks that hate speech laws make the internet poorer, the good old remove kebab/god is a serb loop meme is still preserved in its original form on YouTube as it was archived for history:

And that video is not the only cringe meme-worthy balkan song on the edge of hate speech. There's all kinds of catchy melodies:

 

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Anderson said:

Btw for everyone who thinks that hate speech laws make the internet poorer, the good old remove kebab/god is a serb loop meme is still preserved in its original form on YouTube as it was archived for history:

And that video is not the only cringe meme-worthy balkan song on the edge of hate speech. There's all kinds of catchy melodies:

 

And the meme version to appease young people :D (intentional or not? Who knows)

 

 

It's catchy as hell 😛

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Recent Status Updates

    • jaxa

      Alder Lake has arrived:
      https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/18055-2016-cpugpu-news/page/15/&tab=comments#comment-466190
       
      · 0 replies
    • irg

      Watching warmly for The Black Parade, The Broken Goddess and Blood Death Wish Ep.4. Sometimes the best things in life actually are free.
      · 1 reply
    • STiFU

      We are taking our son on his very first holiday trip to see the sea for the first time. 🙂 Will be back in a week.
      · 2 replies
    • Gilkar

      When I was a young man my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have him around. As I grew older I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in such a short time.
      · 2 replies
    • jaxa

      RTX 3090 Super, RTX 3070 Ti 16 GB, RTX 2060 12 GB
      https://wccftech.com/nvidia-launching-rtx-3090-super-rtx-3070-ti-16gb-and-rtx-2060-12gb-by-january-2022/
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...