Originally posted by Putinbot1Even if one grants that words can be a form of oppression.. it seems to me that the stifling of free speech is a more obvious and wide spread form of oppression that virtually every oppressive regime has historically utilized.
And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech lawsBullshit
Norway is also, not surprisingly, the happiest country in the world. They must be doing something right.
Originally posted by MythLord
BTW, it scares me that a metric for Freedom of Speech/Expression is "Can I say something racist/homophobic/mysoginistic without getting in trouble?"
I agree but I think you should be able to say any number of distasteful things without getting in trouble by the state. Chomsky said it best.. "Even Stalin believes in free speech for speech he agrees with."
When hate speech seeks to hide under the guise of free speech, it is no longer free. Instead it is used as a vehicle to perpetuate hatred. In these dangerous and divided times, if you believe you have the right to belittle others just because you think you have a "right" to, expect an escalated response.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Problem is, too many people are ok with labeling any speech they disagree with as hate speech.
Bingo, and remember you're responding to someone who can't even properly use terms like alt right, so it would be terrifying if someone like that was in charge of deciding what is or is not hate speech. It would be like having a math teacher who thought 2+2 is 5.
Originally posted by Putinbot1Well it's not a matter of opinion in this country. You absolutely do have the right to belittle people.
When hate speech seeks to hide under the guise of free speech, it is no longer free. Instead it is used as a vehicle to perpetuate hatred. In these dangerous and divided times, if you believe you have the right to belittle others just because you think you have a "right" to, expect an escalated response.
If by "an escalation" you mean prosecution by the state, that's not acceptable and not befitting a properly functioning liberal democracy. If you mean some guy might punch you in the face.. That's the way it's always been. That has nothing to do with free speech. The same can happen if you hit on his gf. Doesn't mean you don't have the right to do so. If anything it's him that's over stepping his rights.
Originally posted by SurturHaha adhominem entry into a thread and it's Surtur again... lol. I really am trying to be polite and just debate here. Try too. As Rob pointed out, today has been hard for you with Fly and all. But chill bra, I really cant be arsed putting you in your place anymore. Let's all just talk politely, I was reading about some lonely angry guy on a forum who topped himself and I would hate you to stop posting tomorrow and wonder. So, chill.
Bingo, and remember you're responding to someone who can't even properly use terms like alt right, so it would be terrifying if someone like that was in charge of deciding what is or is not hate speech. It would be like having a math teacher who thought 2+2 is 5.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Haha adhominem entry into a thread and it's Surtur again... lol. I really am trying to be polite and just debate here. Try too. As Rob pointed out, today has been hard for you with Fly and all. But chill bra, I really cant be arsed putting you in your place anymore. Let's all just talk politely, I was reading about some lonely angry guy on a forum who topped himself and I would hate you to stop posting tomorrow and wonder. So, chill.
Lol you need to do better.
I think I lean more towards Silent Master's perspective. He's closer to where it should be.
"I refuse to call you by your self-given title Mousy Empress Will. It's weird and uncomfortable especially to do so in the work place."
"THAT'S VERBAL VIOLENCE! POLICE! GET 'EM! FINES! PUBLIC SHAMING! FIRE THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN MY PATHOLOGICAL MENTAL ILLNESSES!"
We are VERY near to this dystopian, thought-policing scenario I just described. I don't want to live in that police state.
Before I am forced to have my speech and thoughts regulated into stupidity, I will form my own country that has freedom. Cocaine. And hookers. All of you are invited.
Originally posted by mike brown
Well it's not a matter of opinion in this country. You absolutely do have the right to belittle people.
Being an ******* isn't a crime. That's the way it should be too.If by "an escalation" you mean prosecution by the state, that's not acceptable and not befitting a properly functioning liberal democracy. If you mean some guy might punch you in the face.. That's the way it's always been. That has nothing to do with free speech. The same can happen if you hit on his gf. Doesn't mean you don't have the right to do so. If anything it's him that's over stepping his rights.
Really? I totally question if there is such a thing as the absolute right to free speech? It existed when we were cavemen and complex human society had yet to form, and maybe it will exist when radical anarchists rule the world. But collectively, we already know and agree that such an absolute freedom does not, and cannot, exist. Slander, publicly teaching people how to make a bomb, yelling in Trafalgar Square about wanting to kill the queen: these are examples of speech that we do not condone as a society and for which there are legal repercussions. If “free speech” means the unfettered ability to say whatever one wants without facing any consequences or restrictions, it cannot exist. Or if it does, it exists in a matrix of other rights and freedoms, such as the right to physical and psychological safety
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Really? I totally question if there is such a thing as the absolute right to free speech? It existed when we were cavemen and complex human society had yet to form, and maybe it will exist when radical anarchists rule the world. But collectively, we already know and agree that such an absolute freedom does not, and cannot, exist. Slander, publicly teaching people how to make a bomb, yelling in Trafalgar Square about wanting to kill the queen: these are examples of speech that we do not condone as a society and for which there are legal repercussions. If “free speech” means the unfettered ability to say whatever one wants without facing any consequences or restrictions, it cannot exist. Or if it does, it exists in a matrix of other rights and freedoms, such as the right to physical and psychological safety
Dude nobody trusts your judgment on speech.
Honestly, if you were a free speech advocate...would YOU want someone like you in charge of deciding what is hate speech, etc. ?