Libs demand government study on hate speech

[Intense]

Is it the word "study" that is throwing the far-righties into such a tizzy?

They know what they know and don't want to hear new info!!

Kind of like the Muslim extremist in that regard.

does this 'hate speech' throw you into a tizzy....?

Great cartoon!!

Just like this one:

Well, it appeared in the Onion and depicted Moses, Jesus, Buddha and a Hindu God in explicit sex act. (not sure of the rules here so I'm not posting it) but it's one of the funniest cartoons I've ever seen and the point is no one died because of the cartoon.

The cartoon is not hate speech, it's satire. As no reasonable person believes someone's head is actually, literally a bomb.

Didn't you see the Larry Flynt movie?

Satire is a platform, not an excuse for hate, neither is it an automatic pass.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did you want to comment specifically on which examples I gave indicate I'm a "stalinist" ??

You realize that NAMBLA promote pedophile?

They claim they are just expressing their "views" when telling members how to seduce and molest boys.

Are supporting the potation of their "speech"?

Once you prohibit speech for skinheads, prohibiting it for everyone else you dont like comes next. There is no real way to distinguish the two other than "I dont like X".
If you dont like hate speech, don't engage in it.

Slippery slope = Logical fallacy.

One does not necessary follow or lead to the other.

Try again.

We are able to distinguish legal pornography from obscenity.

Seems to me racists and bigots can still have their parties until it escalates to a point leading to a specific action.

Without a clear distinction it is sure to happen. You cannot explain the difference between calling Sarah Palin a whore and calling Obama a chimp. Mainly because there really is no distinction. No law will be able to distinguish those two things. And no, there is no distinction between legal pornography and obscenity.
We already have statutes criminalizing both action and incitement to action.

 

[OKTexas]

My feelings are hurt. WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!?

Nothing.

But if people are showing up to your house because someone posted your address on the web.


Dehumanizing the President by calling him "chimp" (or any overtly racist slur) also has no place in our society? Less intelligent people are easily taken in by ignorant hate speech and motivated to toward violent physical acts. Anyone who promotes these acts by ginning up racial hatred should be under a microscope and on a watch list. Then, when they say or suggest something specific, we nab them and throw them in jail.

Would calling him the mulatto messiah qualify or how about chicago gutter trash? Just trying to feel out the parameters here as to what you consider sufficient for government intervention.

 

[Destroyer2]

For those of you complaining that "hate speech" is subjective, I'd like to remind you that the law is actually about hate crimes -- something much less subjective.

His legislation requires the NTIA to update its report to examine how the Internet and mobile phones can be used to encourage and commit hate crimes based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

(source is OP's article)

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

(Source)

 

[The Rabbi]

For those of you complaining that "hate speech" is subjective, I'd like to remind you that the law is actually about hate crimes -- something much less subjective.

His legislation requires the NTIA to update its report to examine how the Internet and mobile phones can be used to encourage and commit hate crimes based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

(source is OP's article)

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

(Source)

Its a bullshit definition. You dont rape, kill or maim someone because you love them. It creates privileged classes of people for whom killing them is worse than killing someone else.
The existence of "hate crimes" is precisely the reason we don't need "hate speech" to be criminalized.

 

[bripat9643]

Did you want to comment specifically on which examples I gave indicate I'm a "stalinist" ??

You realize that NAMBLA promote pedophile?

They claim they are just expressing their "views" when telling members how to seduce and molest boys.

Are supporting the potation of their "speech"?

Once you prohibit speech for skinheads, prohibiting it for everyone else you dont like comes next. There is no real way to distinguish the two other than "I dont like X".
If you dont like hate speech, don't engage in it.

Slippery slope = Logical fallacy.

Wrong, moron. It's called the "slippery slope" argument. It's not called the "slippery slope fallacy."

One does not necessary follow or lead to the other.

Perhaps, but it often does. When we look at the history of government and liberals, you can depend on the fact that it does.

We are able to distinguish legal pornography from obscenity.

No we aren't.

Seems to me racists and bigots can still have their parties until it escalates to a point leading to a specific action.

What sort of "specific action?" The issue isn't whether parties can exist. The issue is whether people can speak their minds. You want to outlaw the latter.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong, moron. It's called the "slippery slope" argument. It's not called the "slippery slope fallacy.



Perhaps, but it often does. When we look at the history of government and liberals, you can depend on the fact that it does.


No we aren't.

What sort of "specific action?" The issue isn't whether parties can exist. The issue is whether people can speak their minds. You want to outlaw the latter.

{The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

Consequentialism and unintended consequences

The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific rule or course of action is likely to result in unintended consequences and that these "unintended consequences" are undesirable (and, typically, worse than either inaction or another course of remediation). This criticism is a consequentialist criticism - interested in consequences or outcomes or results of a course of action - and does not impugn the character or intentions of the one(s) offering the "slippery slope" argument(s), the basis or bases or concerns underlying the offering of the arguments against a rule or course of action, nor the legitimacy of arguing against any specific rule or course of action.}

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explaining logic to a leftist is like explaining quantum physics to a chimp...

 

[FA_Q2]

I have also noticed him using "calling the President a "chimp" " numerous times in this thread as an example of hate speech.

Funny....I never hear that crap anymore when referring to a black man.....

Except from folks on here that claim conservatives are racists.

Better is the fact that such was a REGULAR attack on Bush. Back then you heard nothing from the left about the hate and vitriol spewing out of their own mouths. Suddenly it is a terrible travesty when such things are said about Obama. Pathetic.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong, moron. It's called the "slippery slope" argument. It's not called the "slippery slope fallacy.



Perhaps, but it often does. When we look at the history of government and liberals, you can depend on the fact that it does.


No we aren't.

What sort of "specific action?" The issue isn't whether parties can exist. The issue is whether people can speak their minds. You want to outlaw the latter.

{The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

Consequentialism and unintended consequences

The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific rule or course of action is likely to result in unintended consequences and that these "unintended consequences" are undesirable (and, typically, worse than either inaction or another course of remediation). This criticism is a consequentialist criticism - interested in consequences or outcomes or results of a course of action - and does not impugn the character or intentions of the one(s) offering the "slippery slope" argument(s), the basis or bases or concerns underlying the offering of the arguments against a rule or course of action, nor the legitimacy of arguing against any specific rule or course of action.}

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explaining logic to a leftist is like explaining quantum physics to a chimp...

Oh shit, you JUST committed a hate speech crime in Hazelnuts world. Stop being so RACIST.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are overreacting -- making assumptions based on your own fear of Government or whatever it is you fear.

Hate speech is like obscenity -- a clearly defined standard as having no socially redeeming quality or purpose.

No, it’s not as you have CLEARLY demonstrated with your complete failure to define the difference when Palin was called a whore and Obama a chimp. Your failure is NOT, as you tried to pass it off, due to Rabbi not being able to understand but rather because the only real difference is your ability (as most people would) to accept such speech when you AGREE.

Speech is protected for a reason and it is NOT to promote peoples ability to state things that we agree on or find reasonable. If such were the case, speech would not be protected. THAT speech needs no protection.

A poster on this site refers to President Obama as a "chimp" -- that is beyond ignorant. It is playing into the lowest form of human being, the extreme and violent racist. This is not a two-sided "opinion", this is a universal truth. Like women having sex with pigs is obscene, this poster is obscene and his hate speech has no place in our society.

That’s YOUR assumption and in some cases is likely true. Of course I believe that you felt quite different when this cropped up:

When its Obama on the other hand, you ASSUME a racist intent even though presidents have been compared to apes for generations as a personification of their idiocy. Because Obama is black, suddenly you liken it to hate speech. Your SINGLE example that you have pulled fourth is riddled with holes and yet you are still demand all over this thread that somehow controlling speech should not only be done but that it is clear what is hate speech and what is not.

The reality is that all you have done is applied your OWN value judgment to others speech (and even hinted that you have the ability to know their intentions with that speech).

Intelligent people can discern between hate and hyper or extreme partisanship. Calling Obama ia socialist is hyper-partisanship or political speech that, though ignorant, is not likely to rally the those prone to violence. It is a legitimate (but weak) means to question left-leaning policies.

That is the difference.

So far you have failed to discern this yourself. Does that mean that you are not intelligent or that your argument is completely false?

And calling Sarah Palin a whore?
Yeah we thought so. Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Comrade? You should be institutionalized.

False analogy.

Try again.

Stop straw manning and stick to what I said.

Calling her a whore is just ugly and tasteless partisan speech.

With YOUR value judgment. Not so with many other people. I don’t see a difference at all. They are both asinine attacks. The only real tangible difference here is that one is on the right and the other on the left.

Right there is the GLARING hole in your argument. For some reason you are capable of interpreting ‘hate’ speech that is left as acceptable while condemning the same action on the right.

People say things designed to motivate people toward political action, but sometimes they cross a line by playing on old fears and prejudices. When that speech includes suggestions about criminal action, then I think we need to block.

That is already illegal btw.

(Psst – that has nothing to do with hate speech)

Slippery slope = Logical fallacy.

One does not necessary follow or lead to the other.

Try again.

We are able to distinguish legal pornography from obscenity.

Seems to me racists and bigots can still have their parties until it escalates to a point leading to a specific action.

First, slippery slope is NOT a logical fallacy on its own. It is not an argument in of itself BUT it certainly is a valid line of logic backed up by more than the slope itself.
Second, this analogy actually is NOT a slippery slope. This is because one does NOT lead to the other. Rather one IS the other. There is no difference whatsoever in regulating what you are calling ‘hate’ and what others are referring to. It is ALL an exercise in moral valuation – a process that is entirely subjective. That subjectivity cannot be circumvented. What is obscene to you may or may not be obscene to others.

Your pornography point is actually a good illustration to this (you really have to stop refuting your own arguments like that). If you don’t think that obscene pornography is not out there and is illegal then you really have zero concept of what is on the open market. There are some things out there that would make me lose my lunch and should CLEARLY be as far from recording machines as possible. Hell, just the MENTION of 2 girls one cup almost put my breakfast on another’s lap and that is just the tip of the iceberg. From rape to brutalization, from abuse/bondage to the point of blood and putting horrifically large objects into spaces that do not naturally fit them, obscene is NOT illegal.

No, porn that is illegal deals with outright illegal acts. Your pig analogy is one such act. You can’t obtain consent from an animal therefore you can’t brutalize a living creature in that manner.

 

[FA_Q2]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

Good. Seeing as how a member of this forum has called me a paedophile before and posted my address on another forum, and the former owner of this forum hacked my Photoshop account and posted pictures of myself and others on his forum, as well as my full name, there needs to be stricter laws regarding internet bullying.

Ever heard of libel, twinkielover?

You do realize that not a single thing you pointed out has one whit to do with the OP or anything posted by others in this thread. Your address has NOTHING to do with hate speech or its legality. Hacking (and distributing data obtained in that manner) is already covered under existing law and it has nothing to do with speech whatsoever. Further, libel and slander have nothing to do with the thread and, again, are covered under existing law.

 

[blackhawk]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

Who would get to decide what qualifies as hate speech?

 

[The Rabbi]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

Who would get to decide what qualifies as hate speech?

The same people deciding what a conforming health care plan is. How's that working out for America?