3 ms·

Thanks for the details, I was mentioning them from memory as well as eliding some details for brevity (though none that I thought changed the nature of my point

Thanks for the details, I was mentioning them from memory as well as eliding some details for brevity (though none that I thought changed the nature of my point). > Police horse and dog: people could be arrested for "threatening, abusive or insulting" speech in public at the time. The police, being wankers, overused their discretion on "insulting" speech and so the law was changed in 2013 to remove "insulting" as a criterion. Yes, this is consistent with my point. Abuse of the spirit of any law is a given, and it's part of what goes into assessment of whether a law is wise or not. It would be great if we could pass laws that could identify and laser-target "bad" speech in perpetuity with no potential for abuse, but that's just now how law works and proneness to abuse is a central part of the criticism. > [count dankula and snoop Dogg lyric] In what way my summary misleading? I think perhaps we have different notions of what's relevant here. Training a dog to react to "gas the jews" isn't categorically different from training a dog to respond to seig Heil with a nazi salute. In fact, it's the exact same joke. > The guy repeatedly left the cartoons in airport _prayer-rooms_. I was mistaken about this story, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure where I got the impression that it occurred in restrooms. >Downplaying the parts people actually got angry about makes it seem like you're complaining about the people getting angry about the actions rather than the trials and punishments. This is a pretty wild assumption about ny motivations. Your descriptions are as easily described as "downplaying" the relative triviality of the acts: in the case of Dankula, you mention "gas the jews" without mentioning that it was a trigger word for another dog trick (use/mention distinction), and in the case of the snoop Dogg lyric, you leave out 1) that "she copied the lyrics from a friend’s Instagram account, which were used by thousands of people to pay tribute to Frankie Murphy" and 2) the complaints centered entirely on use of the word "nigga", which is even more ridiculous than the violent content (as her lawyer pointed out, should Jay-Z be fined for using the same language during a Glastonbury performance?) Though I don't think the reason you left these out is because you're trying to mislead: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections". Whether or not people get angry is immaterial to my point, which is the exact opposite of caring enough about their anger to downplay it. The absurdity comes from the idea that it's workable for the state to be coordinating speech at such a ridiculously low level.

rovolo 5y ago
Thanks for expanding more on your reasons for including each of the examples. > Though I don't think the reason you left these out is because you're trying to mislead: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections". Yes, I agree that every summary will necessarily leave parts out. I disagree with your editorial judgment on how to summarize these incidents as evidence to whether the courts are going too far: - Police horse and dog: missing context that the law was changed almost a decade ago to remove "insulting" as a criterion because these instances were so absurd. - Nazi dog: did not mention that it's a public video, did not mention the quotes which were most important to the court ruling it "Hate Speech". You're focused entirely on "it's a joke" as an explanation to why the quotes are okay in context. - Lyrics: did not mention the text of the lyrics, only the fact that they were quotes. When you quote something, you're giving it a different context. For example, quoting "I'll be back" means different things when one's at a grocery vs when one's stalking someone at their house. Snap Dogg (not Snoop, though that mistake's super understandable) singing the lyric in a song is different from quoting the lyric in a conversation is different from quoting just that lyric in isolation. - Anti-religious: the venue mattered because it plays a part in whether regular behavior is harassment. This sounds like an honest mistake, but I think the venue drastically changes the situation. One saying "I think X sucks" is different when: one's with some friends; one's discussing X's work with acquaintances; one's on a panel with X at a conference; one's at X's wedding; one sends mail to X's house. > Whether or not people get angry is immaterial to my point: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections". I think that you left out context which changes "how absurd" these cases are. The first 2 were essentially fixed. The last 3 were all prosecuted under "Hate Speech", but I think you left out the important aspects of those cases which made them count as "Hate Speech". Sometimes the reason why something is illegal is patently absurd and doesn't really to be addressed in the summary, but I don't think this context could be avoided when trying to claim that these 3 speech restrictions were absurd.

rovolo 5y ago

Thanks for expanding more on your reasons for including each of the examples. > Though I don't think the reason you left these out is because you're trying to mislead: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections". Yes, I agree that every summary will necessarily leave parts out. I disagree with your editorial judgment on how to summarize these incidents as evidence to whether the courts are going too far: - Police horse and dog: missing context that the law was changed almost a decade ago to remove "insulting" as a criterion because these instances were so absurd. - Nazi dog: did not mention that it's a public video, did not mention the quotes which were most important to the court ruling it "Hate Speech". You're focused entirely on "it's a joke" as an explanation to why the quotes are okay in context. - Lyrics: did not mention the text of the lyrics, only the fact that they were quotes. When you quote something, you're giving it a different context. For example, quoting "I'll be back" means different things when one's at a grocery vs when one's stalking someone at their house. Snap Dogg (not Snoop, though that mistake's super understandable) singing the lyric in a song is different from quoting the lyric in a conversation is different from quoting just that lyric in isolation. - Anti-religious: the venue mattered because it plays a part in whether regular behavior is harassment. This sounds like an honest mistake, but I think the venue drastically changes the situation. One saying "I think X sucks" is different when: one's with some friends; one's discussing X's work with acquaintances; one's on a panel with X at a conference; one's at X's wedding; one sends mail to X's house. > Whether or not people get angry is immaterial to my point: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections". I think that you left out context which changes "how absurd" these cases are. The first 2 were essentially fixed. The last 3 were all prosecuted under "Hate Speech", but I think you left out the important aspects of those cases which made them count as "Hate Speech". Sometimes the reason why something is illegal is patently absurd and doesn't really to be addressed in the summary, but I don't think this context could be avoided when trying to claim that these 3 speech restrictions were absurd.