5 ms·

If you are referring to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me", clearly you have other problems with sympathy and empathy. Free

by cbuq 9y ago

If you are referring to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me", clearly you have other problems with sympathy and empathy. Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.

drunkenmonkey 9y ago
See, and now you're attacking the character of a person: "clearly you have other problems". This type of psychological attack is precisely the issue at hand with counter-nazi progress online at this precise moment in time.
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Uh, ad hominems didn't just appear this year in counter-nazi speech. Really: "Many sides". Further, Nazi ideology and arguments are literally ad hominems anyway...
  - drunkenmonkey 9y ago
    I think we can all agree that ad hominems must be put to bed.
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
"Free speech does not protect dangerous speech."
FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
Yes, it does. Explicitly and confirmed by several Supreme Court cases. Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.9a1a7eb38d29 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - leereeves 9y ago
    For example, if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood who once said something nice about communism...oh, wait.
- jacksnipe 9y ago
  That's talking about hate speech, which is absolutely covered by the first amendment. Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.
  - FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
    I must have misread the parent comment then. 'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption. I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not. This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.
    - jacksnipe 9y ago
      I know, which is why I'm trying to be clear that how dangerous this is is a matter of debate. Just because speech is political does NOT mean it is protected (see Dennis v. United States).
      - FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
        To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
The problem is who defines "dangerous speech"? Dr. King himself was labeled as "the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security"
- tw04 9y ago
  Dr. King wasn't calling for the "cleansing" of our nation. This "but it's a slippery slope" thing is ridiculous when the analogy is to someone who was seeking equality and peace. You know, the EXACT opposite of what these idiots are doing.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Indeed, and yet Dr. King would likely have been censored on the internet by the EXACT same justification (he is dangerous to us) in the not so distant past, if the internet were around back then. Which is why it is important to have equality of speech. "Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.
    - tw04 9y ago
      No, he really wouldn't have. You act as though the minority racists ran the entirety of the country and that's just not true. If your statements were based in fact he never would've gotten television or print coverage, and he got ample amounts of both. You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact. If we allow the government to punish people for rape, next thing you know they'll be punishing people for consensual sex. It's a double edged sword. That's really how ridiculous the argument sounds.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Dr. King was in fact censored, ignored, slandered and misrepresented by the television and print media. Especially when he protested the war in Vietnam and began his poor people's campaign. >You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact. How are you so sure corporate censorship can never be used for malicious purposes? Was the war in Iraq a good thing? Because MSNBC censorsed/fired their popular TV host Phil Donahue for questioning it.
OCASM 9y ago
Perfect example of the snowflake generation.

by cbuq 9y ago

drunkenmonkey 9y ago

See, and now you're attacking the character of a person: "clearly you have other problems". This type of psychological attack is precisely the issue at hand with counter-nazi progress online at this precise moment in time.

0xfeba 9y ago
Uh, ad hominems didn't just appear this year in counter-nazi speech. Really: "Many sides". Further, Nazi ideology and arguments are literally ad hominems anyway...
- drunkenmonkey 9y ago
  I think we can all agree that ad hominems must be put to bed.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

"Free speech does not protect dangerous speech."

FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago

Yes, it does. Explicitly and confirmed by several Supreme Court cases. Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.9a1a7eb38d29 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

jsjohnst 9y ago
Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- leereeves 9y ago
  For example, if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood who once said something nice about communism...oh, wait.
jacksnipe 9y ago
That's talking about hate speech, which is absolutely covered by the first amendment. Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.
- FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
  I must have misread the parent comment then. 'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption. I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not. This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.
  - jacksnipe 9y ago
    I know, which is why I'm trying to be clear that how dangerous this is is a matter of debate. Just because speech is political does NOT mean it is protected (see Dennis v. United States).
    - FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
      To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

The problem is who defines "dangerous speech"? Dr. King himself was labeled as "the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security"

tw04 9y ago
Dr. King wasn't calling for the "cleansing" of our nation. This "but it's a slippery slope" thing is ridiculous when the analogy is to someone who was seeking equality and peace. You know, the EXACT opposite of what these idiots are doing.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Indeed, and yet Dr. King would likely have been censored on the internet by the EXACT same justification (he is dangerous to us) in the not so distant past, if the internet were around back then. Which is why it is important to have equality of speech. "Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.
  - tw04 9y ago
    No, he really wouldn't have. You act as though the minority racists ran the entirety of the country and that's just not true. If your statements were based in fact he never would've gotten television or print coverage, and he got ample amounts of both. You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact. If we allow the government to punish people for rape, next thing you know they'll be punishing people for consensual sex. It's a double edged sword. That's really how ridiculous the argument sounds.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Dr. King was in fact censored, ignored, slandered and misrepresented by the television and print media. Especially when he protested the war in Vietnam and began his poor people's campaign. >You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact. How are you so sure corporate censorship can never be used for malicious purposes? Was the war in Iraq a good thing? Because MSNBC censorsed/fired their popular TV host Phil Donahue for questioning it.

OCASM 9y ago

Perfect example of the snowflake generation.