4 ms·

> Additionally, I have yet to encounter any example of reasonable discourse that's being legally suppressed by hate speech laws, but, you know, feel free to mak

> Additionally, I have yet to encounter any example of reasonable discourse that's being legally suppressed by hate speech laws, but, you know, feel free to make a list of the important ideas that you feel are being SILENCED. So you believe it’s fine for any expression that doesn’t fit in with whatever it is that you perceive to be “reasonable discourse” to be a criminal offence? A vast majority of the worlds population is religious, and most religious texts contain “hate speech”. Arresting and prosecuting people for expressing their religious beliefs has happened numerous times. There are also many political and moral issues where the views of one side are simply declared hate speech. Many people have been arrested and prosecuted for such views. A lot of the most ridiculous cases get thrown out, but not before somebody is arrested, potentially spends several days incarcerated, potentially loses their job, potentially loses future employment opportunities, and would have to pay thousands of dollars for lawyers. Whatever it is that you, or I, or anybody else considers to be “reasonable discourse” should be completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. You either believe that views you consider to be offensive, or vulgar, or obscene should be protected, or you believe that all views falling outside the political orthodoxy should be oppressed. Not only is this tyrannical, but it’s completely stupid. If your views happen to fall within the political orthodoxy today, that’s merely a coincidence, and you can guarantee that at some point in the future, they won’t.

wwweston 7y ago
> So you believe it’s fine for any expression that doesn’t fit in with whatever it is that you perceive to be “reasonable discourse” to be a criminal offence? "Any expression?" Way to strawman. There are broad areas of expression that should remain entirely open. There are perhaps some that are borderline but nevertheless deserve respect or at least spaces in which they can be examined. None of that keeps us from identifying categories of speech that are broadly recognizable as outside reasonable discourse, several of which beyond hate speech I identified in my comment above should you want to engage this topic thoughtfully.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I didn’t strawman you at all. Your stated rationalization is that such laws are fine because they do not impact whatever it is you perceive to be “reasonable discourse”. I’ve stated the very immediate dangers of criminalizing unreasonable discourse above. Unreasonable discourse has been instrumental in much of our progress as a society, I can’t imagine why anybody would have so much contempt for it.
  - wwweston 7y ago
    > Your stated rationalization You misspelled "rationale." > is that such laws are fine because they do not impact whatever it is you perceive to be “reasonable discourse” And your apparent supposition here is that lines regarding reasonable discourse should be scare quoted, or are mere matters of entirely subjective speculation. > I’ve stated the very immediate dangers of criminalizing unreasonable discourse above. You don't even have any particular model of what you mean by reasonable or unreasonable discourse, let alone an idea of what I do, in spite of available clues. If you want to fix your thinking on the topic (much less challenge mine), start there. The invitation to provide concrete examples of valuable discourse that's criminalized by hate speech is only one of several avenues available for this.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      I most certainly meant ‘rationalization’, believing that freedom of expression, the most fundamental building block of a free society, should be restricted to your own idea of reasonable is absolutely something that you need to internally rationalize. > your apparent supposition here is that lines regarding reasonable discourse should be scare quoted, or are mere matters of entirely subjective speculation. Reasonable is an entirely subjective quality, there is no objective framework for divining reasonableness. > If you want to fix your thinking on the topic The fact that you believe you have some position of authority to dictate to others how they should “fix their thinking”, so that their thoughts are somehow more correct, really says a lot about you. > The invitation to provide concrete examples of valuable discourse that's criminalized by hate speech Here you go, legitimate religious speech resulting in a conviction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond Here’s another person receiving a wrongful arrest payout for exactly the same crime, to highlight exactly how absurd these laws are, even to the people enforcing them: https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18098283.preacher-wins-payout-police-wrongful-arrest/ https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18098283.preacher-wins-payout... Of course, please feel free to explain to me why none of that speech was reasonable in the first place. Perhaps you could enlighten me with some correct thinking.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  You can have your opinion about it but hopefully you don't have any power to enact your opinion

wwweston 7y ago

> So you believe it’s fine for any expression that doesn’t fit in with whatever it is that you perceive to be “reasonable discourse” to be a criminal offence? "Any expression?" Way to strawman. There are broad areas of expression that should remain entirely open. There are perhaps some that are borderline but nevertheless deserve respect or at least spaces in which they can be examined. None of that keeps us from identifying categories of speech that are broadly recognizable as outside reasonable discourse, several of which beyond hate speech I identified in my comment above should you want to engage this topic thoughtfully.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
I didn’t strawman you at all. Your stated rationalization is that such laws are fine because they do not impact whatever it is you perceive to be “reasonable discourse”. I’ve stated the very immediate dangers of criminalizing unreasonable discourse above. Unreasonable discourse has been instrumental in much of our progress as a society, I can’t imagine why anybody would have so much contempt for it.
- wwweston 7y ago
  > Your stated rationalization You misspelled "rationale." > is that such laws are fine because they do not impact whatever it is you perceive to be “reasonable discourse” And your apparent supposition here is that lines regarding reasonable discourse should be scare quoted, or are mere matters of entirely subjective speculation. > I’ve stated the very immediate dangers of criminalizing unreasonable discourse above. You don't even have any particular model of what you mean by reasonable or unreasonable discourse, let alone an idea of what I do, in spite of available clues. If you want to fix your thinking on the topic (much less challenge mine), start there. The invitation to provide concrete examples of valuable discourse that's criminalized by hate speech is only one of several avenues available for this.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I most certainly meant ‘rationalization’, believing that freedom of expression, the most fundamental building block of a free society, should be restricted to your own idea of reasonable is absolutely something that you need to internally rationalize. > your apparent supposition here is that lines regarding reasonable discourse should be scare quoted, or are mere matters of entirely subjective speculation. Reasonable is an entirely subjective quality, there is no objective framework for divining reasonableness. > If you want to fix your thinking on the topic The fact that you believe you have some position of authority to dictate to others how they should “fix their thinking”, so that their thoughts are somehow more correct, really says a lot about you. > The invitation to provide concrete examples of valuable discourse that's criminalized by hate speech Here you go, legitimate religious speech resulting in a conviction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond Here’s another person receiving a wrongful arrest payout for exactly the same crime, to highlight exactly how absurd these laws are, even to the people enforcing them: https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18098283.preacher-wins-payout-police-wrongful-arrest/ https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18098283.preacher-wins-payout... Of course, please feel free to explain to me why none of that speech was reasonable in the first place. Perhaps you could enlighten me with some correct thinking.
stOneskull 7y ago
You can have your opinion about it but hopefully you don't have any power to enact your opinion