Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #21
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
Hate speech laws, like any other law restricting speech, just diminishes the concept of free speech.

It doesn’t matter is the speech is hateful, or if we like it or not, or anything other than it is speech.

I don’t think that we as a nation should lower ourselves to the level of those who riot and attack campus speakers because they say their speech (conservatism) is hate speech. That is where the left is going.
11-04-2019 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #22
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 10:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 09:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don’t a lot of European countries that have nothing to do with Nazi Germany currently have laws that punish hate speech?
Defending thought control?
Asking if it really is the case that the sort of speech control measures are actually only related to totalitarian/authoritarian regimes.
Is George really correct? Or do a number of western democracies have methods to punish anti-social speech?

Keep in mind the history there. Most of Europe was under the totalitarian/authoritarian rule of divine right monarchs for the better part of two millennia. Their notions of power sprung from the top. They've taken some of that power back in the parliamentary democracies and republics, but they are still subjects, not citizens. They don't have anything like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They don't have a 1st Amendment. They have a long tradition of acquiescing to totalitarianism. That's their tradition and it is in their DNA.

So the acceptability of punishing anti-social speech is taken for granted.

Looking for a more honest discussion like this - which gets away from the tropes George laid out and Tanq agreed with. I think you’re correct about why our Western European contemporaries are more likely to accept these sorts of speech restrictions while the US is generally a lot more wary of them.

I would prefer we kept our differences in this regard.
11-04-2019 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #23
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
So we are all in agreement. I wonder what those are silent so far think.

FBO? Fountains? atEase? JAAO? Bueller?
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2019 10:16 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
11-04-2019 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #24
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-04-2019 12:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kil...&FORM=VIRE

No comment, Lad?

What comment are you looking for?

I’m not a constitutional lawyer and don’t have the expertise to parse what constitutes harmful speech under our current judicial system. Tanq would be a much better person to discuss where this falls. I understand that we have decided that there is some speech that is criminalized, but very much know that it is out of my wheelhouse to parse the details and identify where that line is.

I also don’t think we should pass hate speech laws.
11-04-2019 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #25
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-04-2019 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-04-2019 12:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kil...&FORM=VIRE

No comment, Lad?

What comment are you looking for?

I’m not a constitutional lawyer and don’t have the expertise to parse what constitutes harmful speech under our current judicial system. Tanq would be a much better person to discuss where this falls. I understand that we have decided that there is some speech that is criminalized, but very much know that it is out of my wheelhouse to parse the details and identify where that line is.

I also don’t think we should pass hate speech laws.

Cop out.

Lots of people don’t have the expertise. We call those people voters. They are allowed to elect representatives no matter how ignorant they or the representatives are, and those representatives would be the ones to pass this law, to the applause of their constituents.

You said that you were unfamiliar with the context of “killing cracker babies” and so could not determine if it should be criminal speech. So I provided a clip. There are others, by this person and others. Google “killing cracker babies”. Not surprised you haven’t seen this - I think Fox was the only network to report.

I think this falls directly as protected free speech, even though I find it to hateful, racist, and abhorrent. But I wonder if it would count as hate speech or not under propos d hate sp each las, since thos seem geared to protecting minorities, and white people (crackers) are not a protected minority.
11-04-2019 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,932
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #26
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-04-2019 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 10:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 09:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don’t a lot of European countries that have nothing to do with Nazi Germany currently have laws that punish hate speech?
Defending thought control?
Asking if it really is the case that the sort of speech control measures are actually only related to totalitarian/authoritarian regimes.
Is George really correct? Or do a number of western democracies have methods to punish anti-social speech?

Keep in mind the history there. Most of Europe was under the totalitarian/authoritarian rule of divine right monarchs for the better part of two millennia. Their notions of power sprung from the top. They've taken some of that power back in the parliamentary democracies and republics, but they are still subjects, not citizens. They don't have anything like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They don't have a 1st Amendment. They have a long tradition of acquiescing to totalitarianism. That's their tradition and it is in their DNA.

So the acceptability of punishing anti-social speech is taken for granted.

Looking for a more honest discussion like this - which gets away from the tropes George laid out and Tanq agreed with. I think you’re correct about why our Western European contemporaries are more likely to accept these sorts of speech restrictions while the US is generally a lot more wary of them.

I would prefer we kept our differences in this regard.

Lad, I hate to break it to you, but this honest discussion is rooted in the very "tropes" that I laid out.

You asked whether non-Nazi European regimes prohibited antisocial speech. I named one in my original post (which perhaps you missed), but of course I only scratched the surface of Europe (and mankind's) sordid history. As you know, the track record of Europe is exactly why we have the First Amendment in the first place -- and an important reason why the United States exists at all. And the track record of Europe SINCE our amendment's adoption is exactly why only an idiot or tyrant would sincerely wish for what the Washington Post is suggesting.
11-04-2019 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,932
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #27
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So we are all in agreement. I wonder what those are silent so far think.

FBO? Fountains? atEase? JAAO? Bueller?

Come to think of it, At Ease and his sidekicks have demonstrated a certain degree of consistent hatefulness in this forum. And the slime who doctored a picture of my father's grave exhibited the most sustained hatefulness I've ever experienced, not only through his libelous posts in this forum, but also through profane and unhinged attacks in other forums and against other people.

It would not be unsatisfying to see them rot in prison, and also to know that rotting would be the least of their worries as prisoners.
11-04-2019 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,932
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #28
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 09:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(11-04-2019 08:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-04-2019 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 10:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 09:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Defending thought control?

Asking if it really is the case that the sort of speech control measures are actually only related to totalitarian/authoritarian regimes.

Is George really correct? Or do a number of western democracies have methods to punish anti-social speech?

Certainly places like Germany have such things as banning the Nazi flag, or France's hate speech laws, and others. The practice isnt *solely* limited to totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. But the incidence and depth of such regimes speech control to the incidence and depth of that of the Western democracies is a very large ratio.

George's statement is spot on with that analysis. To state otherwise, or in the manner that you wish to use as the yardstick would be much akin to saying 'California isnt a Democratic state, because there are 7 Republicans in the state House'.

And, even with the exemplars of Western democracies that you allude to, the practice of anti-social speech laws, let alone hate speech laws, is simply, succinctly, and pointedly absolutely anathema to the ideals of 'classic liberalism' (i.e. Locke, Bentham, and the entire supporting cast of wide individual personal rights thought makers that the Bill of Rights is cast from) as to be grotesque in nature. So in that vein, George has a valid point about modern liberalism being very adrift in that school.

I’m a bit confused by your analysis. George’s original comment was in response to an article arguing for a law the criminalizes “hate speech,” and he said that modern leftists taking that idea seriously is stupid and bankrupt because the track record for such actions points to totalitarian regimes.

I asked if that was really true, and you agreed that there are western democracies with laws criminalizing hate speech, but that asking that question was, in essence, stupid. Weird read.

In reality, what happened was George ignored that laws focused on hate speech are actually quite common in the west, and not limited in any way totalitarian regimes, and I pointed that out to him. And by using that strategy, it becomes very difficult to have an honest conversation about whether we should look to follow the lead of western democracies in establishing hate speech laws, or avoid them to be more protective of speech, regardless of its quality.

And I provided the counterpoint that the breadth and depth of those laws when compared to totalitarian regimes is negligible in relative terms. In reality, you are focused on the single pinprick of a statement as opposed to the very broad generalities that underlie it.

George is absolutely correct that the vast, vast majority in depth and breadth of anti-social speech laws runs to totalitarian and authoritarian-bent regimes. You seemingly think that George said that this was exclusive to those regimes. Perhaps you can point out where George said as such. I cannot see that.

But regardless of the source of such 'anti-x' speech laws, the roots are in the belief of the primacy of the state over those individual rights espoused by the so-called 'classic liberals'. I think the fact that the calls for such hate speech restrictions are almost almost exclusively by the left here underlie that movement's beliefs in statism; they are the bedrock of the modern US liberal movement.

I think George's observations are spot on about the relation between the calls for 'hate speech' restrictions and an underlying and undying belief by modern liberalism in statism's primacy over what the classical liberals would have termed fundamentally individual rights in nature.

Thanks for explaining to Lad what should have been obvious to him, but for an inclination to sophistry.
11-04-2019 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #29
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
(11-04-2019 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 10:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 09:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-03-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don’t a lot of European countries that have nothing to do with Nazi Germany currently have laws that punish hate speech?
Defending thought control?
Asking if it really is the case that the sort of speech control measures are actually only related to totalitarian/authoritarian regimes.
Is George really correct? Or do a number of western democracies have methods to punish anti-social speech?

Keep in mind the history there. Most of Europe was under the totalitarian/authoritarian rule of divine right monarchs for the better part of two millennia. Their notions of power sprung from the top. They've taken some of that power back in the parliamentary democracies and republics, but they are still subjects, not citizens. They don't have anything like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They don't have a 1st Amendment. They have a long tradition of acquiescing to totalitarianism. That's their tradition and it is in their DNA.

So the acceptability of punishing anti-social speech is taken for granted.

The fundamental distinction between those that accepted and followed the ideas and ideals of the classic liberalism in the 1600's to the 1800's, and those that still disavowed them in favor of the state.

It falls into the classic 'fight' between the higher acceptance of statism and those Bentham/Lockean classic liberalism positions.

And modern progressivism/liberalism has wholly identified itself in the last 100 years, starting with Wilson, through FDR and LBJ, through Obama, and wholly and fully in today's Democratic party as much more in conflict with the principles of classic liberalism and in line with the principles of a statist society.

The calls for more statist intervention in the sense of hate speech laws are absolutely in line with the theism of modern liberalism in the United States. And is absolutely in line with the acceptance of statism in Europe in this sense -- they are intertwined in the concept of authoritarianism and totalitarianism of the divine right era. And that aura of statism primacy based on divine right has zero difference than the aura of statism primacy that current set that George noted. And each has deep ties to the concepts of modern US progressivism that not only advocates for a stronger statist reach, that is one of its core tenets.

I guess all lad feels the need to do is cry 'trope' without bothering to know the backgrounds and philosophies. But lad is strangely resistant to discussions that involve a deep dive into the roots of modern US progressivism I have found.
11-04-2019 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,932
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #30
RE: First Amendment --- what should be the boundaries?
I re-read the Washington Post editorial that started this thread, and I was struck by how childish it is in its reasoning and rhetoric. It seems impossible that the guy who wrote it was ever any kind editor or diplomat, yet the byline says that we was both. The two organizations that he worked for (Time and the State Dept.) should be embarrassed that they were mentioned in his byline.
11-04-2019 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.