5 ms·

You are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But tha

You are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But that's not the case. We are not the government, far from it. The government is a collection of people who have power over us. Many of them are corrupt and will do evil-- just imagine the worse member of the political party you disagree with as a dictator. Every time you want to give government power to the government, imagine that guy as a dictator wielding that power. Any limitations, as we have seen, on human rights become the camel nose under the tent, and then you eventually end up with government violating the right wholesale. (eg: secret courts and secret rulings, National Security Letters an the like, illegal surveillance and wiretapping.) While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion.

s73ver_ 9y ago
"You are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But that's not the case. We are not the government, far from it. The government is a collection of people who have power over us." That we, the people, choose (a least in non-dictatorship countries). "While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion." Taken to extremes, that means that hiring a hit man, or ordering someone in your cult to kill someone isn't responsible. And yet, as a society, we've said otherwise.
- GauntletWizard 9y ago
  This argument is patently false. As soon as you give them the power to censor speech, we stop choosing the government - They choose themselves, by deciding what we can and cannot say, who we can and cannot hear from, who gets to even announce their candidacy. See https://youtu.be/c1HdCIW2Xtk https://youtu.be/c1HdCIW2Xtk - We're not China, but they're not even using their official power to censor, just misusing their official power to look the other way while their unofficial power censors. This is why we need adversarial politics - And why even trolls must be protected speech, because they serve as a canary in the coal mine about what you're not allowed to say.
rcfox 9y ago
> Any limitations, as we have seen, on human rights become the camel nose under the tent, and then you eventually end up with government violating the right wholesale. (eg: secret courts and secret rulings, National Security Letters an the like, illegal surveillance and wiretapping.) Free speech in Canada does not allow for hate speech or inciting violence, and we're at least no worse than the USA for whatever violations of the right.
- ralusek 9y ago
  In Canada it is illegal to refer to somebody by anything other than their preferred gender...
- jquery 9y ago
  The camel's nose is in the tent in your country. Good luck getting rid of it. Hate speech laws are blasphemy laws wearing a secular skirt. They will be expanded to persecute political minorities. http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/20/m-103-weaponizes-what-a-phobia-is http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/20/m-103-weaponizes-what-a... https://www.catholicregister.org/item/26111-m-103-could-bring-violence-to-canada https://www.catholicregister.org/item/26111-m-103-could-brin...
- eradicatethots 9y ago
  Thanks to the internet I’m sure you still get plenty of exposure to America’s actually free speech.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    You're saying that like being bombarded with hate speech is a good thing.
colanderman 9y ago
> While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion. Instead of a mob, what if I use speech to sic a dangerous dog on someone? The incitement is no different – the dog isn't thinking rationally, nor is anyone in the mob ("mob mentality"). In both cases the inciter is directing the action. Of course, you can't legally try a dog… but you can't practically try a mob. Same with war crimes. Should generals not be held accountable for genocides under their orders, if they never personally murdered any civilians? After all, they were just saying words.
woodruffw 9y ago
> The government is a collection of people who have power over us. Where I live, they have power over me because the people put them there. We can (and absolutely should) talk about corruption and the erosion of popular rule, but I don't think we should succumb to such a fatalist view. > While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion. Read my argument again. If inciting a mob to violence is immoral and we accept that the law should reflect that judgement, then it follows that incitement itself should be a crime (and, in fact, is a crime).
noobermin 9y ago
>Many of them are corrupt and will do evil-- just imagine the worse member of the political party you disagree with as a dictator. I personally see very little utility in this thought experiment because this isn't reality. There is a reason why we have a government in the first place, and we risk loss to liberty and freedom by making the government too weak. It's a balancing act, and imagining the worst case should not be an argument for what reality requires. For example, imagine the government was full of rational dictators who had my best interests in mind. Should I give them absolute power? That too is unrealistic, so why make arguments based on it.

s73ver_ 9y ago

"You are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But that's not the case. We are not the government, far from it. The government is a collection of people who have power over us." That we, the people, choose (a least in non-dictatorship countries). "While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion." Taken to extremes, that means that hiring a hit man, or ordering someone in your cult to kill someone isn't responsible. And yet, as a society, we've said otherwise.

GauntletWizard 9y ago
This argument is patently false. As soon as you give them the power to censor speech, we stop choosing the government - They choose themselves, by deciding what we can and cannot say, who we can and cannot hear from, who gets to even announce their candidacy. See https://youtu.be/c1HdCIW2Xtk https://youtu.be/c1HdCIW2Xtk - We're not China, but they're not even using their official power to censor, just misusing their official power to look the other way while their unofficial power censors. This is why we need adversarial politics - And why even trolls must be protected speech, because they serve as a canary in the coal mine about what you're not allowed to say.

rcfox 9y ago

> Any limitations, as we have seen, on human rights become the camel nose under the tent, and then you eventually end up with government violating the right wholesale. (eg: secret courts and secret rulings, National Security Letters an the like, illegal surveillance and wiretapping.) Free speech in Canada does not allow for hate speech or inciting violence, and we're at least no worse than the USA for whatever violations of the right.

ralusek 9y ago
In Canada it is illegal to refer to somebody by anything other than their preferred gender...
jquery 9y ago
The camel's nose is in the tent in your country. Good luck getting rid of it. Hate speech laws are blasphemy laws wearing a secular skirt. They will be expanded to persecute political minorities. http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/20/m-103-weaponizes-what-a-phobia-is http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/20/m-103-weaponizes-what-a... https://www.catholicregister.org/item/26111-m-103-could-bring-violence-to-canada https://www.catholicregister.org/item/26111-m-103-could-brin...
eradicatethots 9y ago
Thanks to the internet I’m sure you still get plenty of exposure to America’s actually free speech.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  You're saying that like being bombarded with hate speech is a good thing.

colanderman 9y ago

> While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion. Instead of a mob, what if I use speech to sic a dangerous dog on someone? The incitement is no different – the dog isn't thinking rationally, nor is anyone in the mob ("mob mentality"). In both cases the inciter is directing the action. Of course, you can't legally try a dog… but you can't practically try a mob. Same with war crimes. Should generals not be held accountable for genocides under their orders, if they never personally murdered any civilians? After all, they were just saying words.

woodruffw 9y ago

> The government is a collection of people who have power over us. Where I live, they have power over me because the people put them there. We can (and absolutely should) talk about corruption and the erosion of popular rule, but I don't think we should succumb to such a fatalist view. > While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion. Read my argument again. If inciting a mob to violence is immoral and we accept that the law should reflect that judgement, then it follows that incitement itself should be a crime (and, in fact, is a crime).

noobermin 9y ago

>Many of them are corrupt and will do evil-- just imagine the worse member of the political party you disagree with as a dictator. I personally see very little utility in this thought experiment because this isn't reality. There is a reason why we have a government in the first place, and we risk loss to liberty and freedom by making the government too weak. It's a balancing act, and imagining the worst case should not be an argument for what reality requires. For example, imagine the government was full of rational dictators who had my best interests in mind. Should I give them absolute power? That too is unrealistic, so why make arguments based on it.