Originally posted by AstnerSo you brought up a negative consequence that underpins your sophistry but whether or not that consequence actually manifests is completely irrelevant...
No it doesn't. My argument was that people shouldn't be jailed.Whether or not people are actually being jailed is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
barker
Originally posted by AstnerMere assault causes no physical harm either without battery. If you swing your fist at a person's face and stop short 2 inches from actually touching their face, you have assaulted them under the law but not battered them under the law.
Hate speech causes no physical harm whatsoever. It doesn't matter what insults you throw at me. I can choose not to be offended by them. It's literally that easy.
Should your assault be prohibited under the law? It is. And you already conceded so. But you are two-facedly pretending that actual physical harm is the bright-line rule for culpability when it comes to speech.
Moving on and, more importantly, if in the action of throwing a punch that stopped short 2 inches from them but that person reacted in self-defense and kicked your nuts, were they not justified in their reaction? Were you not culpable for the reaction of the "audience"? You actually never touched them nor intended to touch them (in your own head) but in your warped mind, you inflicted no actual physical harm. You didn't reap what you sowed? Your actions did not result in unnecessary violence that never would have happened but for your affirmative action?
It's exactly the distinctions that Smurph pointed out... are you allowed to scream "FIRE!!!!" in a theater when no fire occurs but the resulting stampede injures several people? Those people could simply choose to have not listened to you? It's literally that easy?
Trying to divorce the reaction of the audience from your free speech/hate speech equivocation nonsense is as stupid as divorcing assault from battery. It's so f@cking obvious in a myriad of real world examples that the only reason you're trying to muddy the waters is to reverse-justify thinly veiled hate speech.
Originally posted by SmurphNuff said.
I said that hate speech dehumanizes people, not free speech.The fact that you get those terms mixed up is... telling.
Originally posted by AstnerRight.
That's correct. That doesn't mean that I agree with it.
So when you said
"North Korea has 'limited free speech' which is to say that they don't have free speech."
What you really meant was... "every country on Earth"?
Originally posted by Astnerlol, Astner...
Here you're conflating contractual laws laws pertaining to speech. They're categorically different.
I did not name a single category that relies on contract law. None of those examples involve the enforcement of a contract.
Free speech is a thing that (depending on where you live) exists only as a barrier between you and your government.
Contract law is a category of law that binds you and whoever you contracted with.
Do you...
do you understand what a contract is?
Originally posted by AstnerNice. A white, Swedish dude explaining how easy it is to choose to not hear hate speech.
Hate speech causes no physical harm whatsoever. It doesn't matter what insults you throw at me. I can choose not to be offended by them. It's literally that easy.
What a f*cking clown.
Originally posted by Smurph
My dude, a law preventing you from forming an oral contract is a law restricting your speech.
Originally posted by Smurph
No, those are opposite scenarios. In the case of threats, the government is using its governance of criminal law to prevent you from saying certain things. The "contract" never forms (not that it actually is a contract, in any sense). In the mechanic scenario, a contract forms, and because you freely entered that contract, you are bound by it. You have wilfully restricted your own options (in this case, the ability to refuse payment). And in the mechanic scenario, there is no form of expression at issue.Your contract argument is nonsense and your analogy is a dud. Try again.
But you're wrong, it's a unilateral contract, which means that the second party doesn't have to agree to it, it's formed regardless, and whether or not it's carried out doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Smurph
Yes. It's almost as if some speech is restricted based on its content and context.
Originally posted by Smurph
I said that hate speech dehumanizes people, not free speech.The fact that you get those terms mixed up is... telling.
The fact that people differentiate hate speech from free speech is ridiculous. Because non-offensive speech does not need to be protected because it doesn't bring about reprisals.
In other words, the point of free speech is to protect speech that offends.
Originally posted by SmurphNot that I want to validate this schmuck but I imagine that conservatives control certain aspects of Swedish news media who peddle a manufactured sense of non-parity when it comes to freedom of expression.
Nice. A white, Swedish dude explaining how easy it is to choose to not hear hate speech.What a f*cking clown.
Illegal to burn a Koran. But go ahead and make movies criticizing Christianity. So unfair! Forgetting that Muslims constitute 6% of the Swedish population and are almost concededly marginalized and would reasonably feel threatened if the other 85% of the country's population were burning Korans left and right.
And this isn't even getting into the reports that Russians are funding anti-Islam sentiment in European countries. So you can either be a goddamned sap or buy into the fake victimhood where the country's society offers you every privilege... except for that of arbitrary bigotry.
Or in Astner's mind, the whole world is against me and my fee-fees~~~~!
Originally posted by AstnerNo, no it's not. Hate speech is simply a different form of assault that violates the equal protection you ought to be afforded to under your country's laws to be free from oppression.
Hate speech is protected under free speech.
We all understood where you really came from and you kept denying/pretending otherwise, but we all knew what it was you were trying to justify, b1tch.
I've more respect that you said the quiet part out loud. But it's not like we gave you a choice. At least we can tear the facade of thinly-veiled racism away.
Originally posted by AstnerOk so to be clear... your position is that... threats aren't speech?
That's a very broad definition of speech you have and in very stark contrast to your initial claim that the purpose of free speech is to express ideas.
Originally posted by AstnerI am actually baffled that you think this makes sense.
Again, you're generalizing here. An oral contract has to be deemed legitimate for a case to go through. It has nothing to do with speech.
Did you find this on some alt-right corner of the internet and just... misread?
Originally posted by Smurph
Right.So when you said
"North Korea has 'limited free speech' which is to say that they don't have free speech."
What you really meant was... "every country on Earth"?
Originally posted by Smurph
I did not name a single category that relies on contract law. None of those examples involve the enforcement of a contract.
Originally posted by Smurph
Free speech is a thing that (depending on where you live) exists only as a barrier between you and your government.
Originally posted by Smurph
Nice. A white, Swedish dude explaining how easy it is to choose to not hear hate speech.What a f*cking clown.
Originally posted by Smurph
Ok so to be clear... your position is that... threats aren't speech?
Of course a threat would be a unilateral contract, that doesn't have to be fulfilled, i.e. it's illegal to form.
Originally posted by Smurph
In fact, let me prove a point: Smurph, you're a racist.
Now you have a history of being accused of being a racist. It means nothing.
Originally posted by SmurphYeah but supposedly that's us projecting onto him.
Any conversation with Astner feels like it's never been clearer that somebody has a history with being called racist.
It's totally not a self-inflicted consequence of his own deplorable views -- fecking white guy in Sweden feeling oppressed because there are laws against hate speech upon minorities, lol.
No, we have to humor his insistent peddling of sophistry and pseudo-logic justifying his thinly veiled racism.
Originally posted by AstnerI'm not confusing anything. You wanted to talk out of your ass about how law should govern speech. In other words... a matter between an individual and their government. We never started debating this idea of an "ideology" of free speech, whatever that means.
Now you're confusing free speech as a legal right (e.g. the First Amendment), which aims to protect you against the government. This is different from the ideology of free speech.
You've already admitted that every country infringes speech but get ready to hear about corporate policy restricting what you can and cannot say. If we're no longer worried about the law, and now just expression in any given context? Oof. Bad news for you free speech masturbators.
Originally posted by AstnerBut there's no applicable contract law because... there's no contract. The "contract" never formed, Astner. Contracts have less than zero to do with the criminal law against threats. You are so prideful that you are willing to look like KMC's biggest moron.
No, because it's not the speech that's being infringed on, it's the unilateral oral contract that you're forming by threatening someone.
And, not that it matters, but a "unilateral oral contract" isn't a thing. Look up the definition of consideration, in terms of contracts. You don't make a contract just by unilaterally threatening somebody. That's... very stupid.
In plain terms: your government is using its powers of criminal law to prevent you from making certain speech (ie, threats). You admit each element of that sentence but when I string all the words together you start to regurgitate some pseudo legal bullshit that you don't understand.
Oh ok. I'll take a nap.
While I do that, feel free to let us know whether these other restrictions on expression are justified.
Originally posted by SmurphEvery noise bylaw. Every advertising requirement and restriction. Defamation laws. Laws against threats and harassment. Laws against perjury. Copyright laws. Content moderation and ratings systems. Laws against fraud. The regulatory systems governing what doctors and lawyers can, cannot, must and must not say.
Or maybe just cut to the chase and tell us why laws against hate speech cramp your style.
Originally posted by Astner
I've addressed your arguments, and now you seem to be repeating yourself, so I'll just redirect you to my previous replies. It also looks like you could a break.
Originally posted by SmurphI mean... there's a long line for that position.
You are so prideful that you are willing to look like KMC's biggest moron.
Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. My argument was that people shouldn't be jailed.Whether or not people are actually being jailed is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
It is entirely relevant. It is your entire point. You are aguing against something that does not happen, while remaining silent about free speech violations that do happen. It speaks volumes about your priorities.
Stephen Gould once said, "I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." Where are your free speech absolutist principles about things that are actually happening?