AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-01-01, 13:09   Link #81
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Badly written laws in undemocratic countries, maybe.
Quote:
Laws aren't written that way.
Yes, and to my knowledge laws in democratic countries do not forbid but punish based on the severity of the crime, which is why I disagree on censorship wholeheartedly. I already said that for the constitution of my country several pages ago. There might be laws that are absolute, and I believe treason is one of them.

Quote:
He wasn't arrested, and it wasn't about "consequences". It was about him doing something purportedly illegal. (Not to mention in bad taste and disrespectful, but the courts can't punish him for that.)
If you already agreed that our definitions are different, then why bring this up at all? I believe what happened to the comedian was a result of his consequences (since I believe that you live in a democratic country). You already know my views on this. If what he did were illegal, then he would have gotten arrested with a sentence no matter why he said it.

Quote:
Why is that? After all, homosexuality, being unpopular, has to be wrong. Isn't that how you see things?
If that is the case, then I believe the general consensus is homosexuality is "wrong," but that doesn't have anything to do with me, and that's not the case. No, it's not very unpopular. Most people don't mind it (where I live) but that doesn't mean they accept it personally. It's the mere problem of homosexual married couples having the same benefits as traditional marriage (coupled with religion, etc...) that's popular, and that's another story.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 13:27   Link #82
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
Yes, and to my knowledge laws in democratic countries do not forbid but punish based on the severity of the crime,
And I already said I don't see what you're getting at there. Petty theft and murder are punished differently, and yet both are forbidden.

Quote:
which is why I disagree on censorship wholeheartedly.
How are the two even related? What the hell does the way law are written have to do with your views on censorship?

Quote:
I already said that for the constitution of my country several pages ago. There might be laws that are absolute, and I believe treason is one of them.
Explain to me how the laws concerning treason are different from the laws concerning everything else.


Quote:
If you already agreed that our definitions are different, then why bring this up at all? I believe what happened to the comedian was a result of his consequences (since I believe that you live in a democratic country). You already know my views on this.
Actually, I don't, because I have no idea what you mean by "consequence". Seriously, look it up in a dictionary. Think long and hard about whether it really fits the way you use it. If it does, come back to me and explain how.

Quote:
If what he did were illegal, then he would have gotten arrested with a sentence no matter why he said it.
1- We don't arrest people for every instance of law-breaking. Most of the time we just fine them.
2- It's not proven that what he did is indeed illegal. It's under discussion.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 13:56   Link #83
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Now it's my turn to not understand what you're saying at all. You are just not open-minded enough to try to understand my views but rather rely on technicalities of definitions to prove your point, whatever it may be. This discussion is over. To answer your questions would be repeating my self for the third time, so there's I already stated my point, but you just won't get it. Never mind, I'll say it again. Censorship comes before actions with direct punishment in all situations while democratic laws are written to punish after the action after determining the consequences of said action. And yes, that's how I define "censorship."

EDIT: If you interpret this as me thinking censorship is unconstitutional, then so be it.

Last edited by KholdStare; 2009-01-01 at 14:07.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 14:21   Link #84
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I haven't even raised the subject of constitution at all.

And we're not even talking about the same thing when we say "censorship". To me, if you punish someone because of something he's said, it's censorship. I have no idea what you call it.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 14:41   Link #85
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Well I'm glad we're getting to the root of our disagreement, since that's not how I see censorship. If we have a law saying anyone who makes racist comments in public in any situation will be punished, then that is to me real censorship, so it's just a difference of views. However, we're discussing one specific incident, not a proposed law, and since it's under "discussion" I'm assuming there isn't yet a law that censors these comments. Now let's focus on whether or not he should be punished instead.

On that topic, I say no. But like I already said, I am not Jewish, so I can't "feel" how offended they are when someone denies the holocaust.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 15:13   Link #86
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
Well I'm glad we're getting to the root of our disagreement, since that's not how I see censorship. If we have a law saying anyone who makes racist comments in public in any situation will be punished, then that is to me real censorship, so it's just a difference of views. However, we're discussing one specific incident, not a proposed law, and since it's under "discussion" I'm assuming there isn't yet a law that censors these comments. Now let's focus on whether or not he should be punished instead.

On that topic, I say no. But like I already said, I am not Jewish, so I can't "feel" how offended they are when someone denies the holocaust.
What? The comedian was just an example that made me think of the topic. I have little interest in discussing the specific incident (unless there are a lot more Frenchpeople on this board than I thought. I doubt anyone else's heard about it.)

And the law exists already (see the link I posted, it was published in 1972). Obviously - he wasn't going to break a law that hadn't even been written yet. The inquiry is on whether what he did constitutes a breach of the law or not, and if so, what should be done about it. That sort of issue is seldom clear cut.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 15:20   Link #87
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No.People speak out when their desire to do so is greater than their fear of consequences. That's why rudeness is so common on the internet. So if you decrease the consequences, you'll get more people speaking out, which will increase the tensions, which will increase the desire to speak out, and so on.
What does the internet have anything to do with this discussion? And you are right, when the fear of consequences is overwhelmed by their desire to speak out, in other words, they cannot not put up with their current condition anymore, they will speak. And what make you think violence bares no consequences? Give me a place where vandalism is legal.

Quote:
Depends what you mean by "rough way". Generally, in democracies, being popular is enough. And, as I've already written, the government isn't what worries me.
Depends on what "popular enough" is. If 30% of the population adopt a proposal while the other 70% don't give a rat (as in most democracies),yet, the demand will be very well granted. However, if the 70% are die-hard opponent of such proposal, it will not go through.

The latter scenario would be disastrous if that 30% clustered in a certain area surrounded by the other 70%, in which case, not so pleasant consequences should be expected. But again, if the government is competent enough, violence or such will be avoided. Maybe "doing the best it can" is not enough.

Quote:
Yeah, I think you've taken your metaphor too far. People are neither wolves nor sheep. They're people. Civil unrest, riots... It's not cause by "wolves". It's cause by people. Some of which are leaders. Most of whom are followers.
If everyone is happy with their status, it will not take a brigade of police to disband them. Attending the meeting, slandering the speaker (if there is ground for such action), assigning officers to monitor the crowd etc... are all valid means for the government to take if it is potent enough.


Quote:
How am I supposed to take "Because once the government succeeds in doing something once, it'll repeat, of which there is no doubt.", if not "if the government gets the legal power to censor hate speech, it'll use that foothold to get the power to censor political opposition"? That is a slippery slope argument.
My bad, so that was what you meant. That may not be a universal truth, but it is a very likely scenario. Look at this scenario:

_A man states his opinion in public. Unfortunately, he is an ass who gets too excited and spouts out not-so-ok stuffs which may lead to some violence. He is removed from the public.

_Another man shares the latter opinion and decides to speak out. Let not take the position both men protects into consideration yet. And let be clear that the first man got removed just because of his rubbish raving. Now, since the second man shares the view of the first offender of the law, he would be very well share the same fate even though he is eloquent and calm during his speech.

As you can see, precedence is a very powerful and dangerous tool to abuse. Unfortunately, it is very easy to abuse.

Quote:
For my own country, I'd actually tend to agree. Not because I'm particularly afraid of the government abusing its censorship power, but because I think we ought to be civilized enough to take a few assholes abusing their freedom of speech without going up in flames. However, that's not a position I'd hold as absolute, regardless of circumstances.
But if those SOBs are few enough, it will not be a concern right? Obviously, we must monitor them.

Quote:
And as I said, it'd have the counter-productive effect of making him more popular, more legitimate, so, yeah, it matters.
As I said, it is just the simplest of methods. Besides, it really doesn't matter. It may make him popular or maybe not. Let assume thee worst case. He is now popular but not because of his ideas but because of the government. Now he is driven into a never ending war where his contribution the opponents of the government is but a single breathe if the government tackles stuffs nicely.


Quote:
It's a cultural thing.
Lulz? Well, the change the culture J/k.

From the look of it, the crowd is pretty unorganized. And I don't think it takes that much effort to disband such unless the government does not give a rat at first and only acts when it is too late.
Quote:
How irresponsible. It's like saying that hygiene at a food plant doesn't matter because there are doctors. The best way to deal with a gang war isn't to throw everyone involved into our already overcrowded jails. It's to not have it at all.
How can you "not to have it at all?" By drafting a law to ban it? Don't be naive. You can ban everything but it will amount to nothing if you do not have the capacity to enforce it, which is the reason why you must ban them.

There legal and illegal porn, since you cannot fight the illegal one effectively, you ban porn all together! Please enlighten me how such thing can work.

Quote:
Who knows why those guys blow themselves up?
See. If you don't care for that "trivial" detail or assume that it is only due to insanity, you should be prepared to bare the results.
Quote:
Large amount? How many people blew up in London's trains? Four? If even one percent of the followers go that far, all it takes is 400 followers. In a country of several tens of millions.
How many did people they piss off in the Middle East? Certainly, not four.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that people insulting each other, covered by "freedom of speech" will only increase tensions instead of, as you claim, decrease them by letting off some steam.
People has always insulting each other, even if they are a same race. So what is your point? Besides, the second amendment of the US Constitution nicely tackles this

Quote:
Letting people claim that the holocaust never happens is not a good way of "draining water".
Because that is not how you suppose to drain it? Or maybe the tank is already leaking?

Quote:
Their demand not to be publicly insulted by hate speeches?
If you refer to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney
No policy would satisfy everyone, I recognize that. However if a policy benefits 50% of the people in a region while lets the other 50% suffer, that won't do and dire consequences are inevitable. And as you out it, there are limits, that applies to the people too. If they decide to resort to violence, it means either you don't care about them enough or they are at their limits already. Whatever it is, I believe it is not the first time that group ever proposes their demand.
I really don't get your point.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 15:30   Link #88
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Are you going to translate the law or did you expect me to know French? If we're talking about my definition of censorship, which means no one can make fun of Jews under any circumstances, then my stance is no.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 15:51   Link #89
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
What does the internet have anything to do with this discussion?
The consequences of being rude on the internet are less than IRL, which is why people are more easily rude online.

Quote:
And you are right, when the fear of consequences is overwhelmed by their desire to speak out, in other words, they cannot not put up with their current condition anymore, they will speak.
The fear is linked to the consequences. Decrease the consequences, and you can get people to speak without increasing their desire.

Quote:
And what make you think violence bares no consequences? Give me a place where vandalism is legal.
I have no idea where you got that.

Quote:
Depends on what "popular enough" is. If 30% of the population adopt a proposal while the other 70% don't give a rat (as in most democracies),yet, the demand will be very well granted. However, if the 70% are die-hard opponent of such proposal, it will not go through.

The latter scenario would be disastrous if that 30% clustered in a certain area surrounded by the other 70%, in which case, not so pleasant consequences should be expected. But again, if the government is competent enough, violence or such will be avoided. Maybe "doing the best it can" is not enough.


If everyone is happy with their status, it will not take a brigade of police to disband them.
Disband whom? Or do you want to interfere with their right of reunion?

Quote:
Attending the meeting, slandering the speaker (if there is ground for such action),
There's never ground for slander. I also find amusing that you're afraid of the government abusing its power of censorship, but want it to use propaganda as an alternative.

Quote:
assigning officers to monitor the crowd etc...
What crowd?
Quote:
are all valid means for the government to take if it is potent enough.




My bad, so that was what you meant. That may not be a universal truth, but it is a very likely scenario. Look at this scenario:

_A man states his opinion in public. Unfortunately, he is an ass who gets too excited and spouts out not-so-ok stuffs which may lead to some violence. He is removed from the public.

_Another man shares the latter opinion and decides to speak out. Let not take the position both men protects into consideration yet. And let be clear that the first man got removed just because of his rubbish raving. Now, since the second man shares the view of the first offender of the law, he would be very well share the same fate even though he is eloquent and calm during his speech.

As you can see, precedence is a very powerful and dangerous tool to abuse. Unfortunately, it is very easy to abuse.
You example is flawed. What the law covers is what people say. Not how. It doesn't matter how eloquent one is.

Quote:
But if those SOBs are few enough, it will not be a concern right? Obviously, we must monitor them.


As I said, it is just the simplest of methods. Besides, it really doesn't matter. It may make him popular or maybe not. Let assume thee worst case. He is now popular but not because of his ideas but because of the government. Now he is driven into a never ending war where his contribution the opponents of the government is but a single breathe if the government tackles stuffs nicely.
OK, that last sentence just didn't parse. I don't know what you meant.

But him being popular would be bad. Greater audience, more converts, more potential for violence.

Quote:
Lulz? Well, the change the culture J/k.

From the look of it, the crowd is pretty unorganized. And I don't think it takes that much effort to disband such unless the government does not give a rat at first and only acts when it is too late.
I have no idea what crowd you're talking about. But riots are easy neither to prevent nor to disperse.

Quote:
How can you "not to have it at all?" By drafting a law to ban it? Don't be naive. You can ban everything but it will amount to nothing if you do not have the capacity to enforce it, which is the reason why you must ban them.
Let's take a simple example. A charismatic leader of Arabic origin tells the world (or rather, his neighborhood) of the evils of Jews. Since he's eloquent, he's got a lot of people convinced that Jews are out to get us all and that violence is the only solution. The Jewish community which lives next to this neighborhood is angry, their own leaders makes speeches about the evils of Arabs. On both sides, people are getting angrier, till one day, they get violent and you've got a gang war. How could it have been avoided?

Well, you could have silenced the leaders before it went that far. Add to that a more visible police presence while everyone cools down. Sure, people will be angry. But not so angry they'll do crazy stuff just to get at the other. And in time, they'll calm down and it'll be forgotten. Tense, but not an all out war.

You're probably going to tell me that just having the police patrol the area would be enough. But we just don't have enough men. It's enough as long as people aren't too crazy or too numerous. But if you let the tensions increase, well, you're just asking for a large scale riot.

Quote:
There legal and illegal porn, since you cannot fight the illegal one effectively, you ban porn all together! Please enlighten me how such thing can work.
No idea what you're trying to say.

Quote:
See. If you don't care for that "trivial" detail or assume that it is only due to insanity, you should be prepared to bare the results.

How many did people they piss off in the Middle East? Certainly, not four.
The terrorists were native to England. There's also the issue that people in the Middle East are pissed off. It's done. One has to deal with the situation as it is, not as we wish it would be.

Quote:
People has always insulting each other, even if they are a same race. So what is your point?
Yeah, and insults make people angry. As long as it's individual to individual, it stays under the radar. If it starts to get to the point communities are set against each other, though, the problem changes. For one thing, the government has a chance to do something about it before violence erupts.

Quote:
Besides, the second amendment of the US Constitution nicely tackles this
Don't know what it says. Or why it should matter. Are you trying to appeal to tradition?

Quote:
Because that is not how you suppose to drain it? Or maybe the tank is already leaking?
You've lost me with your metaphore, but no, holocaust denial is unlikely to appease tensions between the Jewish community and everyone else.

Quote:
If you refer to this:


I really don't get your point.
Then let's drop it and say I don't understand your paragraph. Especially "it is not the first time that group ever proposes their demand.".

Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
Are you going to translate the law or did you expect me to know French?
Neither, I'm not interested in getting to the nitty gritty details of legislation. I'm not a lawyer, and you expect laws to be as simple as "no one can make fun of Jews under any circumstances".

The relevant bit says that it is illegal to promote discrimination, hate, or violence based on racism or religion.
Quote:
If we're talking about my definition of censorship, which means no one can make fun of Jews under any circumstances, then my stance is no.
No to what?
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 16:01   Link #90
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Let's take a simple example. A charismatic leader of Arabic origin tells the world (or rather, his neighborhood) of the evils of Jews. Since he's eloquent, he's got a lot of people convinced that Jews are out to get us all and that violence is the only solution. The Jewish community which lives next to this neighborhood is angry, their own leaders makes speeches about the evils of Arabs. On both sides, people are getting angrier, till one day, they get violent and you've got a gang war. How could it have been avoided?

Well, you could have silenced the leaders before it went that far. Add to that a more visible police presence while everyone cools down. Sure, people will be angry. But not so angry they'll do crazy stuff just to get at the other. And in time, they'll calm down and it'll be forgotten. Tense, but not an all out war.

You're probably going to tell me that just having the police patrol the area would be enough. But we just don't have enough men. It's enough as long as people aren't too crazy or too numerous. But if you let the tensions increase, well, you're just asking for a large scale riot.

There are laws that state what penalties apply when there is damage to property. The only thing the government should do is to deter them with these. Otherwise, people are free to brew their hate speeches and the government should act only when there is loss in life or property. If you live in a democracy then you know very well that people have the right to riot (the act per se, not the collateral damage). If there are damages, then individuals are individually responsible for what they destroy and should be charged accordingly. That's why you don't see live bullets being fired in the riots in Greece or in France, for example. Compare with Burma or China where governments actively try to stop deviant opinions under the guise of protecting public safety...
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 16:07   Link #91
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Interesting law you have there. We don't have any laws regarding racism nor discrimination (nationally), so I'm perfectly used to no censorship. My stance is still no. If your reading comprehension isn't up to scratch as to "no to what," then that's not my problem.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 16:16   Link #92
Zakuraa
The Princess Has Arrived♥
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Michigan
Age: 22
Send a message via AIM to Zakuraa Send a message via Yahoo to Zakuraa
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
What line?

Disrespectful expression is still expression. The things I want to say to a dictactor would hardly seem respectful to him, I suspect.

In the end, I think too many people talk about the "freedom of expression" in academic terms. On the ground, the reality is different; is dynamic. When you exercise tact, judgement and a good sense of timing, a single word is all you need to effect change.
You obviously don't get my point or aren't trying to understand it. I'm saying there's a time where people use "Freedom Of Expression" as a way to get out of trouble when they obviously know something was done wrong.

But I understand this part:
Quote:
Disrespectful expression is still expression. The things I want to say to a dictactor would hardly seem respectful to him, I suspect.
as I always expect, many don't understand a lot about Freedom of Expression, they sometimes still use it as a way as a "Get out of Jail Free Card". Right? :P
Zakuraa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 17:47   Link #93
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Umm, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is banned not for some idealistic reason, but for a practical one. It has little to do with freedom of speech and more with preventing damage to other people. I always cringe at the idea that banning such a situation equals to restricting your freedom of speech. It's more akin to actually hurting people, which is illegal enough.

Otherwise, everyone's entitled to insult whoever they want on any basis. And it's great that they are. However, everyone else is entitled to think those who insult other people with no basis at all are idiots. And with good measure.

There are gray areas, of course, which involve similar cases to the crowded theater situation, when someone says something that will knowingly lead to actual, physical damage to other people--but then again, I don't think that has anything remotely to do with freedom of speech.
Best post that I have read in this entire thread.

I only have one point to add. If the danger is either not clear, or present, then the government is not supposed to do anything anyways.

A couple of examples:

Incident 1: A man distributes pamphlets on a street that preaches to overthrow the government. There is a clear danger to this, but not a present one since he has no means of accomplishing this goal. Therefor, there is no reason for the government to actively pursue this person and punish him.

Incident 2: A guy holds a rally in the backyard of his house with hundreds of people, and there is a man filming it live for television. He is holding a gun with no ammo in it, and is giving a hate speech. He mentions on television that if the government does not do anything about their racial woes, he might have to take some "revengeance."

In this case, there is a present danger (Though it is arguable since the rally is nowhere near the government), but it is not clear. The man merely mentioned "revengeance," which is not even a real word, and we are not able to discern what action he was planning to take. Therefore, no action is necessary against him.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 17:50   Link #94
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Well I am not forbidden to shout STFU when someone yells fire in a theater
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 17:55   Link #95
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
The consequences of being rude on the internet are less than IRL, which is why people are more easily rude online.
It's the internet for Einstein's sake!
Quote:
The fear is linked to the consequences. Decrease the consequences, and you can get people to speak without increasing their desire.
You fail to adopt the alternative view which is quite prevalent nowadays. If you used the Internet as a reference, then let me tell you that the "consequences" here are merely social pressures, which is absent from the Internet.

Quote:
I have no idea where you got that.
From you obviously. You talk about this consequence, that consequence but overall they are all would-be consequence should a law been adopted to prevent free speech. How about consequences from committing vandalism as somehow inspired by certain speeches. Surely people never thought about that huh?

Quote:
Disband whom? Or do you want to interfere with their right of reunion?
If a crowd loses interest they will disband. See, the problem in your thought process is that you link everything to the use of forces.

Quote:
There's never ground for slander. I also find amusing that you're afraid of the government abusing its power of censorship, but want it to use propaganda as an alternative.
If there is no ground for slander, then what they speaker says is the truth and his personality is unquestionable. Now, what exactly is your problem with that? Because he speaks against the norm?

As for propaganda, I don't care as long the government is stripped away all significant power or is dampened by unbelievable checks. For example, the US government can talk trash about Iraq all it wants. But if there is a amendment stating that whenever a war is commenced, tax must be increased by 500%, then all those propaganda would amount to nothing and there would be no incentive to start doing such. The war however is supported by many people and yet there is quite a number of people against it. The latter group however would be in trouble if they express too extreme a statement. While the former and the government are no less extremists.
Quote:
What crowd?
That what you get for quoting out of context
Quote:
You example is flawed. What the law covers is what people say. Not how. It doesn't matter how eloquent one is.
If you refuse to realize my whole comment and only nitpick trivial stuffs plus analyzing stuffs out of context, then I have nothing more to say.

Well, just in case you really mean it. Here is an example:

+Speaker one: Those fking soldiers rape children oversea. And here those mother***** uses our hard-earn money to support that! We must take back what belongs to us!

+Speaker two: This war is unjustified .... </baton on head thank to the latter>.
Quote:
OK, that last sentence just didn't parse. I don't know what you meant.

But him being popular would be bad. Greater audience, more converts, more potential for violence.
What I say is that the government can divert the attention elsewhere. If he wants to talk about the Jews for example, he will have to focus on human right after this. He is just a mere medium for other more serious groups to advertise their issues. That is, if the government plays smart.
Quote:
I have no idea what crowd you're talking about. But riots are easy neither to prevent nor to disperse.
What makes you think so? Because you are used to "preventing" stuffs at the verge of rupture?

Quote:
Let's take a simple example. A charismatic leader of Arabic origin tells the world (or rather, his neighborhood) of the evils of Jews. Since he's eloquent, he's got a lot of people convinced that Jews are out to get us all and that violence is the only solution. The Jewish community which lives next to this neighborhood is angry, their own leaders makes speeches about the evils of Arabs. On both sides, people are getting angrier, till one day, they get violent and you've got a gang war. How could it have been avoided?

Well, you could have silenced the leaders before it went that far. Add to that a more visible police presence while everyone cools down. Sure, people will be angry. But not so angry they'll do crazy stuff just to get at the other. And in time, they'll calm down and it'll be forgotten. Tense, but not an all out war.

You're probably going to tell me that just having the police patrol the area would be enough. But we just don't have enough men. It's enough as long as people aren't too crazy or too numerous. But if you let the tensions increase, well, you're just asking for a large scale riot.
If he is eloquent enough, maybe it's because he indeed uses facts to support his ideas.

And the anger only winds down if the cause ceases to haunt the subjects. Otherwise, forbidding them to speak only begs for a greater mess in the future. Besides, has it ever crossed your mind that the police also agree with the mob? They are, in the end, people too.

And don't give me the BS that somehow to problem will be solved by the government. If it really cares about the situation, it would calm the people down years ago rather than at the eve of a possible "revolution." We should not endorse impotency.

Quote:
No idea what you're trying to say.
Common you know exactly what I want to say. Is it your wish to ban everything potentially harmful, is it not?

Quote:
The terrorists were native to England. There's also the issue that people in the Middle East are pissed off. It's done. One has to deal with the situation as it is, not as we wish it would be.
Religious sympathy, my friends, bares no nationality. And what is "done?" You mean those people are no longer pissed off?! Wow, that's such a delightful news.

Quote:
Yeah, and insults make people angry. As long as it's individual to individual, it stays under the radar. If it starts to get to the point communities are set against each other, though, the problem changes. For one thing, the government has a chance to do something about it before violence erupts.
Under what radar? whose radar? The government's? Are you saying that the government somehow can monitor relationships of its people?

Quote:
Don't know what it says. Or why it should matter. Are you trying to appeal to tradition?
You don't even know what the second amendment is, most likely don't even care.... Are you trying to appeal to ignorance or appeal to fallacy? Well, it's the right to bare arms.
Quote:
You've lost me with your metaphore, but no, holocaust denial is unlikely to appease tensions between the Jewish community and everyone else.
What I said was "it doesn't matter." If you deny the holocaust publicly, depending on where you are, you would end up with being laughed at or being assaulted. For the latter, let the government play the devil here and pretend that it sees nothing.
Quote:
Then let's drop it and say I don't understand your paragraph. Especially "it is not the first time that group ever proposes their demand.".
After one night everyone has the desire to burn stuffs. Surely that must be true! The beauty of propaganda I guess.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 18:04   Link #96
Zakuraa
The Princess Has Arrived♥
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Michigan
Age: 22
Send a message via AIM to Zakuraa Send a message via Yahoo to Zakuraa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
Well I am not forbidden to shout STFU when someone yells fire in a theater
That made me lol, because it made perfect sense.
Zakuraa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 18:07   Link #97
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
There are laws that state what penalties apply when there is damage to property.
There are also laws forbidding hate speech. Just saying.

Quote:
The only thing the government should do is to deter them with these.
Get people angry enough, and it just won't work.

Quote:
Otherwise, people are free to brew their hate speeches and the government should act only when there is loss in life or property.
Ever heard that prevention was better than cure? Especially when the cure doesn't bring people back.

One of the government's missions is to keep the peace. Not merely to pick up the pieces after the fact. Sure, it sometimes run contrary to some of its other missions and compromises have to be made. Where is the proper balance? That was the question in my first post.

Quote:
If you live in a democracy then you know very well that people have the right to riot (the act per se, not the collateral damage).
They have the right to gather and to demonstrate. They do not have the right to riot.
Quote:
If there are damages, then individuals are individually responsible for what they destroy and should be charged accordingly.
Unpractical in riots situations, where it's hard to prove who did what.
Quote:
That's why you don't see live bullets being fired in the riots in Greece or in France, for example. Compare with Burma or China where governments actively try to stop deviant opinions under the guise of protecting public safety...
I do not see how that follows. I'd like to point out that we do have censorship laws, but we still don't fire live ammo on riots. (Note that the riots don't always return the courtesy.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
Interesting law you have there. We don't have any laws regarding racism nor discrimination (nationally), so I'm perfectly used to no censorship.
You may not have laws against hate speeches, but you do have the concept of fighting words. So I'd say your speech isn't totally free either.

Quote:
My stance is still no. If your reading comprehension isn't up to scratch as to "no to what," then that's not my problem.
Sure. You answer "no" to a post without question, but the problem is my reading comprehension. Or do you mean my original post, which did have a yes or no question: "Shouldn't their lies and insanities be debated and exposed for what they are? " Is that what you're answering "no" to?

And by the way, regardless, it's such a valuable contribution. A resounding "no" supported by... what? Some confusing, artificial separation of laws into two categories, which is ultimately a non sequitur?
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 18:16   Link #98
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Let's take a simple example. A charismatic leader of Arabic origin tells the world (or rather, his neighborhood) of the evils of Jews. Since he's eloquent, he's got a lot of people convinced that Jews are out to get us all and that violence is the only solution. The Jewish community which lives next to this neighborhood is angry, their own leaders makes speeches about the evils of Arabs. On both sides, people are getting angrier, till one day, they get violent and you've got a gang war. How could it have been avoided?

Well, you could have silenced the leaders before it went that far. Add to that a more visible police presence while everyone cools down. Sure, people will be angry. But not so angry they'll do crazy stuff just to get at the other. And in time, they'll calm down and it'll be forgotten. Tense, but not an all out war.

You're probably going to tell me that just having the police patrol the area would be enough. But we just don't have enough men. It's enough as long as people aren't too crazy or too numerous. But if you let the tensions increase, well, you're just asking for a large scale riot.
It is foolishness to think that arresting those leaders would stop the spread of their message. Banning hate speech won't make it go away. So instead of speaking openly about it, they do it underground. Instead of one large gathering in the town square, there are lots of little gatherings in people's basements. The same message is being spread, only now it's in the shadows with no chance more rational sentiments will prevail.

Further, in most cases these kinds of messages won't take root in a community unless there are already problems. It can't be fixed by banning hate speech, arresting those who violate the ban, then pretending things are ok. The situation in everyone's lives is unchanged. Also, you may have just made that leader's message even stronger. He may be in jail, but now his top followers are still out there, spreading his message and claiming he was arrested because he was right.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 18:38   Link #99
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
There is no balance, because fighting words kill or hurt nobody.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-01, 18:52   Link #100
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
It's the internet for Einstein's sake!
?

Quote:
You fail to adopt the alternative view which is quite prevalent nowadays. If you used the Internet as a reference, then let me tell you that the "consequences" here are merely social pressures, which is absent from the Internet.
Your point being...? (And when did I say anything to the contrary?)

Quote:
From you obviously. You talk about this consequence, that consequence but overall they are all would-be consequence should a law been adopted to prevent free speech. How about consequences from committing vandalism as somehow inspired by certain speeches. Surely people never thought about that huh?
Do you mean that the consequences of vandalism should be greater than that of hate speech, and thus deter people more? You are correct. But the problem with speech is that it can increase the motivation for rioting.

Quote:
If a crowd loses interest they will disband.
Again, what crowd are you talking about?

Quote:
See, the problem in your thought process is that you link everything to the use of forces.
Well, yeah, when you say something about the government will "disband" a crowd, I imagine that government will, you know, do something to disband the crowd in question. Even if I don't know what crowd it is. Somehow, it didn't occur to me that the meeting ending naturally would count as the government disbanding anything.

Quote:
If there is no ground for slander, then what they speaker says is the truth and his personality is unquestionable. Now, what exactly is your problem with that? Because he speaks against the norm?
My problem is with your vocabulary. To slander means to lie about someone.

Quote:
As for propaganda, I don't care as long the government is stripped away all significant power or is dampened by unbelievable checks. For example, the US government can talk trash about Iraq all it wants. But if there is a amendment stating that whenever a war is commenced, tax must be increased by 500%, then all those propaganda would amount to nothing and there would be no incentive to start doing such.
Repeal the law, start the war.

Quote:
The war however is supported by many people and yet there is quite a number of people against it. The latter group however would be in trouble if they express too extreme a statement. While the former and the government are no less extremists.
Please note that such political discourse would not be concerned by hate speech laws.

Quote:
That what you get for quoting out of context


If you refuse to realize my whole comment and only nitpick trivial stuffs plus analyzing stuffs out of context, then I have nothing more to say.

Well, just in case you really mean it. Here is an example:

+Speaker one: Those fking soldiers rape children oversea. And here those mother***** uses our hard-earn money to support that! We must take back what belongs to us!

+Speaker two: This war is unjustified .... </baton on head thank to the latter>.
Why would Speaker two be punished? Because Speaker one's an idiot? How does that even work? Are they even saying the same thing?

Quote:
What I say is that the government can divert the attention elsewhere. If he wants to talk about the Jews for example, he will have to focus on human right after this.
Why?
Quote:
He is just a mere medium for other more serious groups to advertise their issues.
Why would serious groups want to have anything to do with a known nazi sympathizer?
Quote:
That is, if the government plays smart.
Play smart how?


Quote:
What makes you think so? Because you are used to "preventing" stuffs at the verge of rupture?
Riots are costly and bad PR. If the government could prevent them, it would.


Quote:
If he is eloquent enough, maybe it's because he indeed uses facts to support his ideas.
How many facts did Hitler need to promote his ideology?

Quote:
And the anger only winds down if the cause ceases to haunt the subjects.
Yeah, so if people get angry at being insulted, stop the insults.

Quote:
Otherwise, forbidding them to speak only begs for a greater mess in the future. Besides, has it ever crossed your mind that the police also agree with the mob?
Irrelevant. Regardless or their sympathies, they still have to do their jobs, which is to keep the peace. Besides, I doubt they feel all that sympathetic toward the guys throwing stones at them.

Quote:
They are, in the end, people too.

And don't give me the BS that somehow to problem will be solved by the government. If it really cares about the situation, it would calm the people down years ago
What if it can't? What's its interest in not doing so?

Quote:
rather than at the eve of a possible "revolution." We should not endorse impotency.
What revolution?

Quote:
Common you know exactly what I want to say. Is it your wish to ban everything potentially harmful, is it not?
No, but I wish people would recognize what is harmful, and weigh the risks and benefits. Rather than work on airy principles and reality be damned.

Quote:
Religious sympathy, my friends, bares no nationality. And what is "done?" You mean those people are no longer pissed off?! Wow, that's such a delightful news.
No, I mean that the guys in the Middle East are pissed off. We can't go back in time and change that.


Quote:
Under what radar? whose radar? The government's? Are you saying that the government somehow can monitor relationships of its people?
I'm saying that if I throw a racial slur at someone, it is likely no one will bother to do anything about it. If I start to gather large crowds and whip them into a racist frenzy, the government will notice me and possibly do something about it.



Quote:
You don't even know what the second amendment is, most likely don't even care.... Are you trying to appeal to ignorance or appeal to fallacy?
Well, sorry for not having much interest in other countries' legislation.

Quote:
Well, it's the right to bare arms.
It's starting to get really annoying. It's "bear", not "bare".

And you think armed people being angry at each other is better than unarmed angry people?

Quote:
What I said was "it doesn't matter." If you deny the holocaust publicly, depending on where you are, you would end up with being laughed at or being assaulted.
Or applauded. And, in the example I gave in the OP, given a prize.

Quote:
For the latter, let the government play the devil here and pretend that it sees nothing.
Oh, great, so now you advocate lynching.

Quote:
After one night everyone has the desire to burn stuffs. Surely that must be true! The beauty of propaganda I guess.
What, you thought there was a united group, with clear demands and maybe a political program, that burnt cars to get its message across? There just are a lot of delinquent whoring for attention. Who like to burn stuff, I guess.


I'd also like to point out, because I think there was a misunderstanding at that level... Our laws aren't made to interrupt someone mid-speech. I'm not worried about a guy getting up on a soapbox one evening and starting a revolution overnight. I'm worried about the effect of repeated hate speeches. Over a long period. By several people.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.